The introductory chapter presents the central themes and framework of the book. It presents the motivations for the study, the main theoretical underpinnings, and the cultural context in which the ethnographic fieldwork took place. The chapter discusses social belonging, prestige and material practices as central in shaping language ideologies and the construction of languages.This is linked to sociological theories of modernity, which have examined the role of social categories in late modern contexts. The latter use the metaphor of ’liquidity’ to emphasise the shifting, context-dependent nature of social categories, while recognising the conditions that temporarily stabilise them. In suggesting the study of how language practices and categories emerge, the chapter situates these processes within broader social structures and power dynamics. This sets the stage for a book that contributes to the decolonisation of linguistics by challenging Eurocentric assumptions and studies language as a socially constructed phenomenon with implications for understanding diversity and social order.

This chapter explores material language practices and their interaction with language ideologies. It investigates how oral, literal, and digital forms co-constitute discourses of normativity and prestige. Through observations of literacy practices, teaching, media, and participants’ reflections, the chapter studies materialisations of language and their ideological implications. The dominance of English writing in formal and institutional contexts contrasts with the variable use of oral Kriol, which resists standardisation. Efforts by the National Kriol Council to create a standardised orthography reveal tensions between fostering linguistic legitimacy and maintaining the anti-standard nature of Kriol. Digital communication amplifies these dynamics, bringing to the fore non-standardised writing that reflects local linguistic realities. Kriol’s oral and multimodal characteristics, perceived as spontaneous, creative, and resistant to disciplinary norms, challenge Western-centric ideologies that prioritise fixed standards. This shows that material language practices are culturally specific. A consideration of the role of materiality in language ideologies challenges universalised epistemologies.

The chapter explores complex ascriptions of linguistic prestige in Belize’s multilingual and postcolonial context. The observations made challenge traditional binary models of overt and covert prestige. English, the former colonizer’s language, holds formal prestige linked to its global status, economic utility, and educational norms. However, this prestige coexists with linguistic insecurity, as many Belizeans combine local and exogenous norms. Conversely, Kriol carries polycentric prestige rooted in national identity, creativity, and resistance to colonial hegemony. It indexes reputation rather than respectability, aligning with Afro-European traditions and anti-standard ideologies. Despite its rise in public and formal domains, Kriol remains ideologically linked to informality, creativity, and resistance. The chapter also highlights the emic construction of ‘code-switching’, valued as the ability to distinguish English from Kriol, reflecting education and social status. This linguistic liquidity – marked by overlapping functions, fluid boundaries, and contradictory discourses – reflects the complex interaction of different forms of prestige in Belize.

This chapter investigates how belonging is constructed through language in Belize. Inspecting linguistic landscapes, interviews, and ethnographic observations, the study reveals the sometimes paradoxical ways languages are ideologically positioned within local, national and transnational contexts. Kriol is central to constructing national belonging and serves as a unifying symbol of a diverse population. It is also tied to racial and transnational belonging, connecting to Afro-Caribbean cultural spaces. Conversely, Spanish is associated with immigration and Guatemala, despite its historical presence and ongoing use. This tension results in contradictory discourses, where Spanish is simultaneously seen as ‘foreign’ and as a home language. English occupies a dual role as both a foreign and national language. While it indexes Belize’s colonial ties and distinguishes Belizeans from their Hispanic neighbours, it is also regarded as essential for education and economic mobility. The chapter concludes that language ideologies and practices do not always align, reflecting the coexistence of diverse historical, social, and political discourses in shaping linguistic belonging in Belize.

This chapter introduces the study of language ideologies and the relationship between language, social belonging, and social order, particularly in the context of late modernity. It approaches linguistic categories as discursively constructed rather than naturally occurring. This frames language as a key lens for understanding human social organisation, emphasising that ideas about language reflect and co-construct broader social and political ideologies. Through a discussion of sociolinguistic and linguistic anthropological theories, the chapter critiques essentialist views of language. It introduces concepts such as social indexicality, standard language, prestige, and centring institutions to explore how language acquires social meaning and status. The chapter also examines the material dimensions of language, including the role of writing, sound, and tangible artefacts such as grammars and dictionaries in shaping linguistic ideologies and language categories. It lays the foundations for understanding languages as dynamic, constructed phenomena embedded in specific historical, cultural, and material contexts.

This chapter focuses on the broader historical, social, and political context of Belize, which is shaped by colonial history, transnational connections, and multilingual practices. Belize’s linguistic composition reflects its complex history, with English as the official language, Kriol as a marker of national identity, and Spanish as both a widespread and contested language. The historical prominence of Afro-European Creoles and the national fear of Guatemalan territorial claims have added to the prestige of anglophone languages. In addition, Belize’s sociolinguistic diversity incorporates indigenous languages, global influences, and a dynamic interaction between English, Kriol, and Spanish. The studied village, initially settled by Spanish speakers, has evolved into a ‘superdiverse’ community due to tourism, migration, and global economic integration. The chapter explores spatial and social stratification within the village, where language use reflects not only ethnicity and class but also local and transnational affiliations. The chapter illustrates the fluidity of linguistic and social boundaries, challenging Eurocentric assumptions about diversity and belonging.

This chapter examines language ideologies in the context of creole linguistics and in the Caribbean. Creole linguistics offers critical insights into how languages are socially constructed. Traditional debates in creole linguistics have often framed creoles as ‘simpler’ or structurally distinct from other languages, reflecting Western biases. Other approaches challenge these views and underline the fluidity and variability of creole languages. In the second part, the chapter examines language attitudes and ideologies in creole-speaking societies, focusing on the Caribbean in general and Belize. Creole languages function as symbols of solidarity and belonging. In Belize, the rise of Kriol’s prestige reflects national identity and cultural independence, and intersects with English, Spanish, and indigenous languages. This requires frameworks that account for the polycentric, complex sociolinguistic realities of creole-speaking societies. The chapter establishes Belize as a compelling site to explore how languages are discursively constructed, and shows how academic and lay perspectives influence this construction.

This chapter is devoted to a linguistic analysis of the variable nature of English in public spaces in Belize, focusing on school, mass media, and research interviews. Adopting a decolonial perspective, it refrains from categorising English in Belize as a distinct and national variety. The analysis reveals significant linguistic variability in morphosyntax, phonetics, and prosody. Public English in Belize incorporates a range of forms influenced by Kriol, Spanish, and international English standards, challenging conventional notions of ’standard’ language. Morphosyntactic features reveal both local and non-local influences, while phonetic analyses reveal individual variations in vowel production linked to social, educational, and ideological factors. Prosodic variation, particularly pitch and intonation, emerges as a key marker of linguistic boundaries. English in Belize resists fixed categorisation and embodies a ’liquid’ linguistic character. This variability results from the absence of a hegemonic cultural and linguistic centre.

This chapter outlines the ethnographic and qualitative methodology employed in this study. The methodological choices focus on understanding language ideologies in a multilingual setting. The study does not engage in a linguistic focus on speech patterns and instead emphasizes the cultural and social meanings that speakers attach to language. It challenges monolingual, Western-centric assumptions by exploring complex links between language and social structures. Data collection included interviews, field notes, observations, classroom recordings, and surveys on language use. The study uses grounded theory to analyse data, and it prioritizes speakers’ perspectives as experts of their own language culture. The chapter argues that decolonising research practices have to treat local language ideologies as legitimate frameworks rather than folk beliefs. A linguistic analysis examines public English, inspecting its variability and influence from both local and external norms. By integrating linguistic, cultural, and social data, the methodological approach provides a holistic view of how language ideologies emerge and intersect with broader social discourses.