Moral foundations and language ideologies: how different moral concerns predict endorsement of linguistic diversity, prescriptivism, and purism
-
Hasan Berkcan Şimşek
Abstract
Public debates on language use often take on moral overtones. Observing how moral concerns permeate these debates has led scholars to interpret them as a rhetorical strategy or as an indicator of a link between morality and language beliefs. Yet, it remains unclear whether such a link truly exists and, if so, in what ways. This study applies Moral Foundations Theory to examine associations between six moral foundations and three language ideologies in Turkey using a validated survey-based design (N = 275). Findings show that language ideologies align consistently with how individuals prioritize certain moral values. Participants prioritizing moral foundations associated with in-group interests, social hierarchies, and purity (binding foundations) were significantly more likely to hold more restrictive language ideologies, compared to those prioritizing moral foundations concerning well-being, equality, and liberty (individualizing foundations). Contrary to the hypotheses, moral purity (which emphasizes avoiding physical and/or spiritual contamination) did not emerge as a significant predictor of linguistic purism, nor did moral deference to authority and tradition significantly predict the belief that there must be a legitimate authority in language use. The findings indicate that effectively addressing linguistic inequality must account for the role of moral reasoning. Future directions for research on morality and language as an area of inquiry are discussed.
Özet
Dil kullanımı üzerine yapılan tartışmalar sıklıkla ahlaki bir ton taşır. Ahlaki kaygıların bu tartışmalara nasıl nüfuz ettiğini gözlemlemek, araştırmacıların bu durumu bir retorik strateji ya da ahlak ile dile yönelik görüşler arasındaki bir bağın göstergesi olarak yorumlamalarına yol açmıştır. Ancak, böyle bir bağın gerçekten var olup olmadığı ve eğer varsa hangi biçimlerde ortaya çıktığı belirsizliğini korumaktadır. Bu çalışmada, Ahlaki Temeller Kuramı’na dayanarak, Türkiye’de altı farklı ahlaki temel ile üç farklı dil ideolojisi arasındaki ilişkiler, geçerliliği doğrulanmış anket temelli bir araştırma tasarımı (N = 275) kullanılarak incelenmiştir. Bulgular, dil ideolojilerinin bireylerin belirli ahlaki değerlere öncelik verme biçimleriyle tutarlı bir şekilde örtüştüğünü göstermektedir. Grup içi çıkarlar, toplumsal hiyerarşiler ve saflıkla (bağlayıcı temellerle) ilişkili ahlaki temelleri önceliklendiren katılımcıların, esenlik, eşitlik ve özgürlükle (bireyselleştirici temellerle) ilişkili ahlaki temelleri önceliklendirenlere kıyasla daha kısıtlayıcı dil ideolojilerine sahip olma olasılıkları istatistiksel olarak anlamlı biçimde daha yüksek bulunmuştur. Hipotezlerin aksine, fiziksel ve/veya ruhsal kirlilikten kaçınmayı vurgulayan ahlaki saflık temeli, dilsel saflığa verilen desteğin anlamlı bir yordayıcısı olarak ortaya çıkmamıştır; aynı şekilde, otoriteye ve geleneğe yönelik ahlaki riayet de dil kullanımında meşru bir otorite olması gerektiği inancını anlamlı biçimde yordamamıştır. Bulgular, dilsel eşitsizliğin etkili biçimde ele alınabilmesi için ahlaki muhakemenin rolünün dikkate alınması gerektiğine işaret etmektedir. Çalışmanın sonunda, ahlak ve dil üzerine gelecekteki araştırmalara yönelik öneriler sunulmaktadır.
Acknowledgements
The author gratefully acknowledges the contributions of Dionysios Zoumpalidis (his PhD supervisor, HSE University), Mira Bergelson (HSE University), Konstantin Zamyatin (University of Helsinki), Naoko Hosokawa (University of Tokyo), Erzhen Khilkhanova (Russian Academy of Sciences), and Kseniia Pershina (University of Hamburg) in the development of the Language Ideologies Questionnaire. The author also extends sincere appreciation to Gökhan Albayrak (Ankara University) for his assistance in data collection.
-
Research ethics: Ethical approval for this study was granted by the HSE Committee on Interuniversity Surveys and Ethical Assessment of Empirical Research, as per their decision dated March 24, 2025.
-
Informed consent: All participants were assured full anonymity and informed about the scope of the research. Before beginning the survey, each participant was asked to provide written informed consent for the anonymous use of their responses for academic purposes. Only data from participants who agreed to the informed consent were used in the analysis.
-
Conflict of interest: The author states no conflict of interest.
-
Research funding: No funding was received for the conduct of this research or the preparation of this manuscript.
-
Data availability: The data and supplementary materials supporting the findings of this study are openly available on OSF at https://osf.io/6en4s/overview?view_only=e48852ecd14d44b59f83bd4bdd4eb30f.
References
Albury, Nathan. 2020. Language attitudes and ideologies on linguistic diversity. In Andrea Schalley & Susana Eisenchlas (eds.). Handbook of home language maintenance and development, 357–376. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.10.1515/9781501510175-018Search in Google Scholar
Argent, Gesine. 2014. Linguistic neuroses, verbal bacteria and survival of the fittest: Health and body metaphors in Russian media discussions about foreignisms. Language & Communication 34. 81–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2013.08.007.Search in Google Scholar
Bacon, Chris K. 2018. “It’s not really my job”: A mixed methods framework for language ideologies, monolingualism, and teaching emergent bilingual learners. Journal of Teacher Education 71(2). 172–187. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487118783188.Search in Google Scholar
Bailey, Richard W. 1992. Images of English: A cultural history of the language, 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.3998/mpub.12814Search in Google Scholar
Baioud, Gegentuul & Cholmon Khuanuud. 2022. Linguistic purism as resistance to colonization. Journal of Sociolinguistics 26(3). 315–334. https://doi.org/10.1111/josl.12548.Search in Google Scholar
Bauman, Richard & Charles L. Briggs. 2003. Voices of modernity: Language ideologies and the politics of inequality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511486647Search in Google Scholar
Bayır, Derya. 2022. Kurdish language, Turkish courts. In Gözde Yılmaz (ed.). Non-discrimination in Turkey, 7–35. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.10.1007/978-3-031-08399-0_2Search in Google Scholar
Billig, Michael. 1991. Ideology and opinions: Studies in rhetorical psychology. London: Sage Publications.Search in Google Scholar
Billig, Michael, Susan Condor, Derek Edwards, Mike Gane, David Middleton & Alan Radley. 1988. Ideological dilemmas: A social psychology of everyday thinking. London: Sage Publications.Search in Google Scholar
Blommaert, Jan. 1999. The debate is open. In Jan Blommaert (ed.). Language ideological debates, 1–38. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110808049.1Search in Google Scholar
Brunstad, Endre. 2003. Standard language and linguistic purism. Sociolinguistica 17(1). 52–70. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110245226.52.Search in Google Scholar
Bunk, Oliver. 2024. What does linguistic structure tell us about language ideologies? European Journal of Applied Linguistics. De Gruyter 12(1). 91–116. https://doi.org/10.1515/eujal-2023-0049.Search in Google Scholar
Burridge, Kate. 2010. Linguistic cleanliness is next to godliness: Taboo and purism. English Today 26(2). 3–13. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0266078410000027.Search in Google Scholar
Cameron, Deborah. 2012. Verbal Hygiene. London: Routledge.10.4324/9780203123898Search in Google Scholar
Çavuşoğlu, Çise. 2019. Standard language ideologies: The case of Cypriot Turkish in Turkish schools in London. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 42(9). 811–826. https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2019.1687711.Search in Google Scholar
Clifford, Scott, Vijeth Iyengar, Roberto Cabeza & Walter Sinnott-Armstrong. 2015. Moral foundations vignettes: A standardized stimulus database of scenarios based on moral foundations theory. Behavior Research Methods 47. 1178–1198. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-014-0551-2.Search in Google Scholar
Cohen, Stanley. 2011. Folk devils and moral panics, 1st edn. London: Routledge.10.4324/9780203828250Search in Google Scholar
Cushing, Ian. 2020. “Say it like the queen”: The standard language ideology and language policy making in English primary schools. Language Culture and Curriculum 34(3). 321–336. https://doi.org/10.1080/07908318.2020.1840578.Search in Google Scholar
Ellemers, Naomi & Kees van den Bos. 2012. Morality in groups: On the social-regulatory functions of right and wrong. Social and Personality Psychology Compass 6(12). 878–889. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12001.Search in Google Scholar
Fitzsimmons-Doolan, Shannon. 2011. Language ideology dimensions of politically active Arizona voters: An exploratory study. Language Awareness 20(4). 295–314. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658416.2011.598526.Search in Google Scholar
Fuller, Janet. 2018. Ideologies of language, bilingualism, and monolingualism. In Annick De Houwer & Lourdes Ortega (eds.). The Cambridge handbook of bilingualism, 119–134. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781316831922.007Search in Google Scholar
Gal, Susan & Kathryn A. Woolard. 2001. Constructing languages and publics authority and representation. In Languages and publics: The making of authority, 1–12. London: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar
Gates, Shivonne M. & Christian Ilbury. 2019. Standard language ideology and the non-standard adolescent speaker. In Clare Wright, Lou Harvey & James Simpson (eds.). Voices and practices in applied linguistics: Diversifying a discipline, 109–125. York: White Rose University Press.10.22599/BAAL1.gSearch in Google Scholar
Geeraerts, Dirk. 2003. Cultural models of linguistic standardization. In René Dirven, Roslyn Frank & Martin Pütz (eds.). Cognitive models in language and thought, 25–68. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110892901.25Search in Google Scholar
Graham, Jesse, Jonathan Haidt, Matt Motyl, Peter Meindl, Carol Iskiwitch & Marlon Mooijman. 2018. Moral foundations theory: On the advantages of moral pluralism over moral monism. In Kurt Gray & Jesse Graham (eds.). Atlas of moral psychology, 211–222. New York: The Guilford Press.Search in Google Scholar
Graham, Jesse, Jonathan Haidt & Brian A. Nosek. 2009. Liberals and conservatives rely on different sets of moral foundations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 96(5). 1029–1046. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015141.Search in Google Scholar
Haidt, Jonathan. 2001. The emotional dog and its rational tail: A social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychological Review 108(4). 814–834. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.108.4.814.Search in Google Scholar
Hansen, Karolina, Michał Wypych, Mirosław Bańko & Michał Bilewicz. 2017. Psychological determinants of linguistic purism: National identification, conservatism, and attitudes to loanwords. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 37(3). 365–375. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927x17737810.Search in Google Scholar
Haugen, Einar. 1972. Dialect, language, nation. In John Bernard Pride & Janet Holmes (eds.). Sociolinguistics: Selected readings, 97–111. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Search in Google Scholar
Heller, Monica. 1999. Heated language in a cold climate. In Jan Blommaert (ed.). Language ideological debates, 143–170. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110808049.143Search in Google Scholar
Irvine, Judith T. 1989. When talk isn’t cheap: Language and political economy. American Ethnologist 16(2). 248–267. https://doi.org/10.1525/ae.1989.16.2.02a00040.Search in Google Scholar
Istanbullu, Suat. 2024. Changing ideologies about Arabic in Turkey and the consequences in Antioch. Journal of Arabic Sociolinguistics 2(1). 75–93. https://doi.org/10.3366/arabic.2024.0023.Search in Google Scholar
Iyer, Ravi, Spassena Koleva, Jesse Graham, Peter Ditto & Jonathan Haidt. 2012. Understanding libertarian morality: The psychological dispositions of self-identified libertarians. (ed.) Liane Young. PLoS One 8. e42366. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0042366.Search in Google Scholar
Kircher, Ruth & Lena Zipp (eds.). 2022. Research methods in language attitudes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781108867788Search in Google Scholar
Kivikangas, J. Matias, Belén Fernández-Castilla, Simo Järvelä, Niklas Ravaja & Jan-Erik Lönnqvist. 2021. Moral foundations and political orientation: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin 147(1). 55–94. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000308.Search in Google Scholar
Kloss, Heinz. 1971. Language rights of immigrant groups. International Migration Review 5(2). 250–268. https://doi.org/10.1177/019791837100500208.Search in Google Scholar
Langer, Nils & Agnete Nesse. 2012. Linguistic purism. In Juan Manuel Hernández-Campoy & Juan Camilo Conde-Silvestre (eds.). The handbook of historical sociolinguistics, 607–625. Hoboken: Wiley-Blackwell.10.1002/9781118257227.ch33Search in Google Scholar
Lewis, Geoffrey. 1999. The Turkish language reform: A catastrophic success. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780198238560.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Lippi-Green, Rosina. 1994. Accent, standard language ideology, and discriminatory pretext in the courts. Language in Society 23(2). 163–198. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0047404500017826.Search in Google Scholar
Lippi-Green, Rosina. 2012. English with an accent: Language, ideology, and discrimination in the United States, 2nd edn. London: Routledge.10.4324/9780203348802Search in Google Scholar
May, Stephen. 2023. Linguistic racism: Origins and implications. Ethnicities 23(5). 651–661. https://doi.org/10.1177/14687968231193072.Search in Google Scholar
McGroarty, Mary E. 2010. Language and ideologies. In Nancy H. Hornberger & Sandra Lee McKay (eds.). Sociolinguistics and language education, 3–39. Bristol Multilingual Matters.10.2307/jj.30945924.5Search in Google Scholar
Milroy, James. 2001. Language ideologies and the consequences of standardization. Journal of Sociolinguistics 5(4). 530–555. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9481.00163.Search in Google Scholar
Milroy, James & Lesley Milroy. 2012. Authority in language: Investigating standard English, 4th edn. London: Routledge.10.4324/9780203124666Search in Google Scholar
Paffey, Darren. 2012. Language ideologies and the globalization of “standard” Spanish. London: Bloomsbury.Search in Google Scholar
Paruzel-Czachura, Mariola, Artur Domurat & Marta Nowak. 2024. Moral foundations of pro-choice and pro-life women. Current Psychology 43. 6051–6606. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-023-04800-0.Search in Google Scholar
Polit, Denise F., Cheryl Tatano Beck & Steven V. Owen. 2007. Is the CVI an acceptable indicator of content validity? Appraisal and recommendations. Research in Nursing & Health 30(4). 459–467. https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.20199.Search in Google Scholar
Portugal, Emma & Sean Nonnenmacher. 2024. “Every word is a world”: Loanword ideologies and linguistic purism in Post-Soviet Armenia. Multilingua. De Gruyter Mouton 43(3). 331–364. https://doi.org/10.1515/multi-2022-0152.Search in Google Scholar
Potter, Jonathan & Margaret Wetherell. 1987. Discourse and social psychology: Beyond attitudes and behaviour. London: Sage Publications.Search in Google Scholar
Ricklefs, Mariana Alvayero. 2021. Variables influencing ESL teacher candidates’ language ideologies. Language and Education 37(2). 229–243. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2021.1936546.Search in Google Scholar
Schiffman, Harold F. 1996. Linguistic culture and language policy. London: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar
Silverstein, Michael. 1979. Language structure and linguistic ideology. In Paul R Clyne, William F Hanks & Carol L Hofbauer (eds.). The elements: A parasession on linguistic units and levels, 193–247. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Search in Google Scholar
Şimşek, Hasan Berkcan. 2024. Cyber-moral panic and language: Criminalisation of Arabic in Turkish social media from 1999 to 2024. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development. 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2024.2404127.Search in Google Scholar
Şimşek, Hasan Berkcan. 2025a. Echoes of the Turkish language reform: Attitudes to Arabic and Persian loanwords in discourse. Turkish Studies 26(3). 633–663. https://doi.org/10.1080/14683849.2024.2447874.Search in Google Scholar
Şimşek, Hasan Berkcan. 2025b. A quarter century of online discussions on Arabic and Kurdish in Turkey: A comparative analysis of language attitudes and controversies. Multilingua 44(5). 621–656. https://doi.org/10.1515/multi-2024-0176.Search in Google Scholar
Spence, Jessica L., Matthew J. Hornsey, Eloise M. Stephenson & Kana Imuta. 2022. Is your accent right for the job? A meta-analysis on accent bias in hiring decisions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 50(3). 014616722211305. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672221130595.Search in Google Scholar
Spolsky, Bernard & Elana Shohamy. 2000. Language practice, language ideology, and language policy. In Richard D Lambert & Elana Shohamy (eds.). Language policy and pedagogy: Essays in honor of A. Ronald walton, 1–42. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.10.1075/z.96.02spoSearch in Google Scholar
Thomas, George. 1991. Linguistic Purism. London: Longman.Search in Google Scholar
Thurlow, Crispin. 2006. From statistical panic to moral panic: The metadiscursive construction and popular exaggeration of new media language in the print media. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 11(3). 667–701. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2006.00031.x.Search in Google Scholar
Trask, R. L. 2005. Key concepts in language and linguistics, 1st edn. London: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar
Tribulato, Olga, Federico Favi & Lucia Prauscello. 2024. Ancient Greek purism: The roots of Atticism. Berlin: De Gruyter.10.1515/9783111382890Search in Google Scholar
Walsh, Olivia. 2016. Linguistic purism: Language attitudes in France and Quebec. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/impact.41Search in Google Scholar
Wiley, Terrence G. & Marguerite Lukes. 1996. English-only and standard English ideologies in the U.S. Tesol Quarterly 30(3). 511–535. https://doi.org/10.2307/3587696.Search in Google Scholar
Woolard, Kathryn A. 2018. Language, identity, and politics in Catalonia. The Brown Journal of World Affairs 25(1). 21–40.Search in Google Scholar
Woolard, Kathryn A. 2020. Language ideology. In James Stanlaw (ed.). The international encyclopedia of linguistic anthropology, 1–21. Hoboken: Wiley Blackwell.10.1002/9781118786093.iela0217Search in Google Scholar
Woolard, Kathryn A. & Bambi B. Schieffelin. 1994. Language ideology. Annual Review of Anthropology 23. 55–82. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.an.23.100194.000415.Search in Google Scholar
Yağmur, Kutlay. 2001. Languages in Turkey. In Guus Extra & Durk Gorter (eds.). The other languages of Europe: Demographic, sociolinguistic, and educational perspectives, 407–427 Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Search in Google Scholar
Yalçındağ, Bilge. 2015. Searching for the content and scope of morality with a framework of moral foundations theory. Middle East Technical University PhD Thesis. https://etd.lib.metu.edu.tr/upload/12619445/index.pdf 12 August 2025).Search in Google Scholar
Zentella, Ana Celia. 2014. TWB (talking while bilingual): Linguistic profiling of latina/os, and other linguistic torquemadas. Latino Studies 12(4). 620–635. https://doi.org/10.1057/lst.2014.63.Search in Google Scholar
Zeydanlıoğlu, Welat. 2012. Turkey’s Kurdish language policy. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 2012(217). 99–125. https://doi.org/10.1515/ijsl-2012-0051.Search in Google Scholar
© 2025 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
