Performing Inclusion, Enforcing Control: A Critical Discourse Analysis of Taiwan’s Indigenous Language Development Act

Abstract

Legal frameworks are often positioned as instruments for protecting and promoting Indigenous language rights. In Taiwan, the Indigenous Language Development Act (ILDA) is presented as a key policy for linguistic justice and revitalisation. However, how such rights are discursively constructed and governed through legal language remains under-examined. Drawing on van Leeuwen’s ‘construction of purpose’ framework within the Critical Discourse Studies approach, this study critically examines ILDA as a form of specialised legal and multilingual discourse. The analysis focuses on grammatical ambiguity, conditional modality, and the attribution of agency to examine how linguistic rights are framed and operationalised within the policy. The findings reveal that while the ILDA aims to protect and promote indigenous language rights, the study critiques the empowerment discourse of the policy as serving the dominant ideological interests. Through rigid structural and grammatical means, authority and ideology are structurally embedded within policy texts. Although the government positions itself as supportive with symbolic inclusion, the controlling nature of the policy mechanism limits the revitalisation efforts, thus functioning as a discursive mechanism of multilingual governance, legitimising state control while appearing to promote linguistic justice, discursively recognising linguistic rights but constraining them institutionally. By treating legal texts as specialised multilingual discourse, this study demonstrates that power and rights are mediated through rigid structural means and that multilingualism is carefully managed rather than supported. The study contributes to global discussions on the role of language policy in sustaining minority languages, suggesting that closer attention should be paid to how purpose and agency are constructed to inform more equitable policy design.