LAUSR

lated with negative socioeconomic trends. What is missing, Liu believes, is an account of the language regimes—“the role of institutions” (p. 11)—in shaping this foregone conclusion. Thus, “to condemn a country with high levels of diversity ignores the institutional options available to the government to respond appropriately” (p. 196). Despite Liu’s welcome critique of the pitfalls of heterogeneity, some of her basic premises would be challenged from an applied-sociolinguistic and linguistic anthropological perspective. Throughout her argument, Liu nevertheless presents homogeneity as the ideal scenario: While language diversity may not be as problematic as once thought, its effects are still in need of mitigation. Missing from this perspective is the understanding that homogeneity itself is not “a natural state” (see Paul Kroskrity, Regimes of Language: Ideologies, Politics, and Identities, 2000, p. 26), but is rather “as much imagined as is community” (Judith Irvine and Susan Gal, Regimes of Language: Ideologies, Politics, and Identities, 2000, p. 76), referencing Benedict Anderson’s (1983) notion of “imagined community.” Language diversity is inherent even in monolingual settings—one variety of a language will necessarily have acquired greater prestige and be interpreted though various language ideologies (James Milroy, “Language Ideologies and the Consequences of Standardization,” 2001). Furthermore, the title Standardizing Diversity implies that diversity needs to be reined in. However, linguistic standardization efforts are frequently prescribed by those in power to control the language habits of many; thus, the very practice of standardization codifies inequality. Lastly, Liu’s concern with the economic impacts of lingua francas overlooks minority language rights (Stephen May, Language Rights and Political Theory, 2003) and the possible loss of minority languages and dialects when they are not afforded meaningful recognition. While she acknowledges that language justice issues are present (p. 17), her priority is economic growth. Standardizing Diversity is an important discussion of language regimes within an economic context. It will likely leave readers, including linguists, rethinking when the recognition of multiple languages is less desirable for the sake of fairness and economic growth.