Ph D WORKSHOP RESEARCH METHODS IN ELF Exploring

Ph. D WORKSHOP “RESEARCH METHODS IN ELF” ~ Exploring perceptions and practices in ELF research CGE PGR Conference Southampton, 24 June 2016 Tomokazu Ishikawa - Sonia Morán Panero - Chittima Sangiamchit

Aims of the workshop ■ Generate discussion on the suitability of different methodological approaches to explore particular aspects of the spread and use of ELF ■ Reflect on potential benefits and limitations of current dominant methodologies in ELF research ■ Identify emerging methodological trends or future orientations (to be followed) in ELF research?

Areas of discussion Tomokazu Ishikawa Researching Language perceptions Researc h purpose Research Methods Sonia Morán Panero Observing communicati ve practices Research Philosoph y Analytical Framewor k Chittima Sangiamchit Methodological questions and orientations

Proposed workshop questions 1. What are the limitations and/or benefits of researching ELF perceptions/practice through – Qualitative/quantitative approaches – Direct/indirect approaches – Researcher roles in observation – Closed/open forms of enquiry 2. To what extent is your methodological approach defined or influenced by – research settings/sites – particular interests as a researcher – theorisation of your object of study (e. g. perceptions/practices as cognitive, autonomous system or as emergent intersubjective practice) 3. Are either ‘elicited’ or ’naturalistic’ data more or less desirable/informative/valid/feasible for the exploration of language perceptions and/or practices in ELF? 4. Do you see any particular methodological orientation(s)/trend(s) as ‘the future’ or ‘most appropriate’ way of exploring perceptions/practices in ELF?

Researching language perceptions: In search of underlying evaluative concepts Tomokazu Ishikawa 24 June 2016 – Southampton

Researching language perceptions: Research purpose and philosophy 1 Language attitudes as evaluative concepts ■ identified with a reservoir of evaluative concepts ■ directed to a linguistic phenomenon (→ Japanese people’s English) ■ underlying observable responses which are constructed situationally Niedzielski and Preston’s (e. g. , 1999/2003) folk linguistics / Preston’s (2010) conceptual reservoir + social psychological perspectives (e. g. , Rosenberg and Hovland 1960; Campbell 1963; Petty et al. 1997; Eagly and Chaiken 2007; Perloff 2014) Tomokazu Ishikawa (ti 1 g 12@soton. ac. uk)

Researching language perceptions: Research purpose and philosophy 2 Language attitudes as evaluative concepts ■ identified with a reservoir of evaluative concepts STABLE ■ directed to a linguistic phenomenon (→ Japanese people’s English) ■ underlying observable responses which are FLEXIBLE constructed situationally The stability and flexibility of attitudes represent two sides of the same coin (Ishikawa Tomokazu Ishikawa (ti 1 g 12@soton. ac. uk)

Researching language perceptions: Research methods 1 Three possible approaches (e. g. , Garrett 2010) ■ societal treatment: how languages/language varieties and their users are viewed in a society e. g. language policy documents, consumer advertisements, linguistic landscape Limitation: not sufficient in many research enquiries ■ indirect approach ■ direct approach Tomokazu Ishikawa (ti 1 g 12@soton. ac. uk)

Researching language perceptions: Research methods 2 Indirect approach The matched guise technique (MGT) and the verbal guise technique (VGT) ■ “the respondents are deceived into thinking that the researchers are investigating attitudes other than those that they are actually researching” (Garrett et al. 2003: 17) e. g. respondents: evaluating people vs. the researcher: language varieties Tomokazu Ishikawa (ti 1 g 12@soton. ac. uk)

Researching language perceptions: Research methods 3 Indirect approach: The MGT (e. g. , Lambert et al. 1960) ■ the same audio text in various languages/language varieties ■ the same speaker(s) under ‘guises’ ■ a questionnaire with rating scales (e. g. pleasant 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 unpleasant) Limitations ■ stereotypes, representativeness (e. g. , Jenkins 2007) ■ non-spontaneous speech, practicality (e. g. , Mc. Kenzie 2010) Tomokazu Ishikawa (ti 1 g 12@soton. ac. uk)

Researching language perceptions: Research methods 4 Indirect approach: The VGT (e. g. , Gallois and Callan 1981) ■ actual speakers of each language/language variety ■ a questionnaire with rating scales Limitations ■ speech factors (e. g. , Jenkins 2007) ■ variety recognition (e. g. , Mc. Kenzie 2010) ■ ‘stereotypical’ MGT/VGT samples imposed (e. g. , Ishikawa Ph. D thesis) Tomokazu Ishikawa (ti 1 g 12@soton. ac. uk)

Researching language perceptions: Research methods 5 Direct approach Questionnaire and interviews ■ “the asking of direct questions about language evaluation, preference etc. ” (Garrett et al. 2003: 16) Tomokazu Ishikawa (ti 1 g 12@soton. ac. uk)

Researching language perceptions: Research methods 6 Direct approach: Questionnaire Rating scales and other closed-response items (e. g. , Coupland Bishop 2007) ■ “The standard method of analyzing quantitative questionnaire data involves submitting them to various statistical procedures” (Dörnyei and Taguchi 2010: 96) Limitation: “confined to predetermined categories” (Garrett et al. 2003: 35) Tomokazu Ishikawa (ti 1 g 12@soton. ac. uk)

Researching language perceptions: Research methods 7 Direct approach: Questionnaire Perceptual dialectology (e. g. , Long and Preston 2002) ■ “to label maps with where different dialects are spoken, or to rate various areas … on how ‘correct’ and ‘pleasant’ the language spoken there is” (Lindemann 2005: 189) Limitation: constrained to respond geographically Tomokazu Ishikawa (ti 1 g 12@soton. ac. uk)

Researching language perceptions: Research methods 8 Direct approach: Questionnaire Open-ended questionnaire (e. g. , Evans and Imai 2011 [2 items]) ■ “questionnaires are unsuitable for probing deeply into an issue” (Dörnyei and Taguchi 2010: 7) ↕ Jenkins’ (2014) open-ended email questionnaire [10 items] ■ respondents’ capability to express themselves in written words ■ relevance of theme to them Tomokazu Ishikawa (ti 1 g 12@soton. ac. uk)

Researching language perceptions: Research methods 9 Direct approach: Interviews Unstructured interviews as casual conversations (e. g. , Jenkins 2014) Casual conversations (Eggins and Slade 1997/2004) ■ unpredictable flow and only vaguely around the research focus ■ dynamic, sometimes humorous, interaction accompanied by occasional smiles and laughter ■ relatively long Tomokazu Ishikawa (ti 1 g 12@soton. ac. uk)

Researching language perceptions: Analytical frameworks 1 Qualitative content analysis ■ to capture the underlying structures of surfacelevel accounts (e. g. , Berg and Lune 2012) ■ coding, categorising and interpreting (e. g. , Schreier 2012) Limitation(? ): Influenced by the research focus and interests (e. g. , Miles et al. 2014) Tomokazu Ishikawa (ti 1 g 12@soton. ac. uk)

Researching language perceptions: Analytical frameworks 2 Eggins and Slade’s (1997/2004) speech functions analysis framework ■ each interviewee’s stance and concerns: his/her initiating moves, variously occurring expansion, and confronting responses or rejoinders ■ meanings of conversational moves ■ applicable to both original and translated data Tomokazu Ishikawa (ti 1 g 12@soton. ac. uk)

Researching language perceptions: Summary Answers to workshop questions Q 1 indirect approach: ‘stereotypical’ samples imposed closed-response items: confined to predetermined categories Q 2 research setting: appropriate for an email questionnaire flexible expressions → open-ended questionnaire and conversational interviews stable underlying concepts → qualitative content analysis (+ Eggins and Slade’s framework) influenced by the research focus and interests Q 3 elicited vs. ‘naturalistic’: not dichotomous Tomokazu Ishikawa (ti 1 g 12@soton. ac. uk)

Researching language perceptions: Selected references ■ Dörnyei, Zoltán & Tatsuya Taguchi. 2010. Questionnaires in second language research: Construction, administration, and processing, 2 nd edn. London: Routledge. ■ Eggins, Suzanne & Diana Slade. 1997/2004. Analysing casual conversation. London: Equinox. ■ Garrett, Peter. 2010. Attitudes to language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ■ Garrett, Peter, Nikolas Coupland & Angie Williams. 2003. Investigating language attitudes: Social meanings of dialect, ethnicity and performance. Cardiff: University of Wales Press. ■ Jenkins, Jennifer. 2007. English as a Lingua Franca: Attitude and identity. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ■ Jenkins, Jennifer. 2014. English as a Lingua Franca in the international university: The politics of academic English language policy. London: Routledge. ■ Lindemann, Stephanie. 2005. Who speaks “broken English”? : US undergraduates’ perceptions of non-native English. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 15(2). 187– 212. ■ Mc. Kenzie, Robert M. 2010. The social psychology of English as a global language: Attitudes, awareness and identity in the Japanese context. Dordrecht: Springer. ■ Miles, Matthew B. , A. Michael Huberman & Johnny Saldaña. 2014. Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook, 3 rd edn. London: Sage. ■ Niedzielski, Nancy A. & Dennis R. Preston. 1999/2003. Folk linguistics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. ■ Preston, Dennis R. 2010. Variation in language regard. In Peter Gilles, Joachim Scharloth & Evelyn Ziegler (eds. ), Variatio delectat: Empirische Evidenzen und theoretische Passungen sprachlicher Variation, 7– 27. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. ■ Schreier, Margrit. 2012. Qualitative content analysis in practice. London: Sage. Tomokazu Ishikawa (ti 1 g 12@soton. ac. uk)

Exploring the construction of orientations towards ELF as social practice Sonia Morán Panero 24 June 2016 – Southampton smp 1 e 08@soton. ac. uk

Research Aims ■ (Non-linguistics) undergraduate’s orientations (i. e. conceptualisations and evaluations) to • Meanings • Variability • Values • Fixity • Functions • ELF • Evaluations English as a global ‘resource’ a labelled language Ways of speaking English ■ The use of language and communication constructs in the formulation of perceptions ■ the ideological work performed in the accounts

Research Methods

A ‘direct’ and qualitative approach: elicited metalanguage ü Observe what constructs/ concepts/labels are used or rejected in accounts ü Observe what meanings and evaluations are assigned to these by participants Capturing complexity and variability of social meaning assignation and evaluation 24

Ontological and epistemological principles informing the methodological approach

Situationality and variability of the object of evaluation ■ ELF as emergent and fluid social practice/language-in-use (see Baird et al. , 2014; Jenkins, 2015) “an attitude is an evaluative orientation to a social object of some sort, whether it is a language, or a new government policy, etc. ” (Garret, 2010: 20) Conceptualisation of the ‘object’shared? known? fixed? as … potentially variable / nonshared “if we want to understand why a person has offered a specific opinion, we need to understand their social representation of the object being considered” (Potter, 1996: 139) 26

Phenomenological and indexical principles ■ Indexicality studies’ understanding of social meaning as multi-dimensional, non-linear, variable, unstable and contextdependent social meaning & 99) evaluations (e. g. Blommaert, 2014; Coupland, 2007: not inherent in particular linguistic features (e. g. Coupland, 2007; Eckert, 2012; Kitaza wa, 2013) mediated by “ideologically constructed representations of difference” (Irivine and Gal, 2000; 2009: 375) ■ Folk Linguistics’ phenomenological approach and pursuit of folk ontologies of language (e. g. Preston, 1994; 2002; Niedzielski and Preston, 2009: 356).

Evaluation as (situationally variable) social action ■ Discursive psychology’s evidence of intra-speaker variability of evaluative practices • discursive practices • performed • constant construction & negotiation “It is not that discursive psychologists do not consider thinking, cognition, mind, feelings and so on, but this is not something they start with” (Potter, 2012: 442), nor something that they see “as causal underpinning of social behaviour”. Foci of analysis ‘accessing’ or ‘measuring’ attitudinal‘ products vs Process of ‘attitude construction’ ‘Actions’ performed through evaluative practice (e. g. Kamberelis and Dimitriadis, 2011; Liebscher and Dailey-O’ Cain, 2009; Parker, 2005; Potter, 1998, Wetherell, 1998)

Analytical framework: a layered approach

Interview analysis: codes & interpretative repertoires § Qualitative content and topic coding (Saldaña, 2016) § Top-down topics, functions, meanings, issues about English/ELF § Bottom-up topics, functions, meanings, issues about English/ELF § Identifying interpretative repertoires (see also Hynninen, 2013; Studer, 2014) § “a lexicon or register of terms and metaphors drawn upon to characterize and evaluate actions and events” (Potter and Whetherell, 1987: 138 ) § the basis for launching descriptions, evaluations and justifications in a given context (Whetherell, 1998: 406). § A way of exploring the “social and political consequences of discursive patterning” (Wetherell, 1998: 410) and how situated talk is embedded in wider historical contexts and sedimentation processes of ideological representation (Edley, 2001)

■ Contributions, controversies and limitations Diminish essentialising interpretations of studied phenomena ■ Identifying conceptual and evaluative repertoires available to interpret and construct experiences with English ■ Identifying language ideologies available and ideological reproduction, challenging, rejection, negotiation ■ Identifying variability and multiplicity of understandings across and within participants – Particular context, interest or identities discussed/invoked ■ Elicited data / ‘naturalistic’ data ■ Partiality of repertoires identified in specific context ■ Generalisability and sharedness claims (? ) ■ Immediacy of talk vs. macro-level interpretation

Trends in perceptual studies of ELF? ■ exploring “attitudes towards different varieties of English and their preferences over one or the other”, with ELF being “among them” (Hynninen, 2013: 52), ■ ELF 1 influences (see Jenkins, 2015)? – Pre-defined linguistic terms/boundaries – Code oriented – Seeking legitimacy ■ “consider[ing] how ELF users describe ELF and what they expect it to be like” (Hynninen, 2013: 53, my italics) ■ ELF 2 influences (see Jenkins, 2015)? – Speaker oriented – Observing processes of linguistic definition and social practice functions – Observing processes of (de)legitimisation in ELF interactions What should the study of perceptions look like methodologically in ‘ELF 3’? (i. e. English as a multilingua franca in Jenkins, 2015)

References I ■ Baird R. , Baker, W. and Kitazawa, M. 2014. The complexity of ELF. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca 3/1: 171 -196 ■ Blommaert, J. M. E. 2014. Meaning as a nonlinear phenomenon: The birth of cool. Tilburg Papers in Culture Studies, 106: 1 -20 ■ Coupland, N. 2007. Style: language variation and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ■ Eckert P. 2012. Three waves of variation study: The emergence of meaning in the study of sociolinguistic variation. Annual Review of Anthropology. 41. 87 -100. ■ Edley, N. 2001. Analysing Masculinity: Interpretative Repertoires, Ideological Dilemmas and Subject Positions. In Whetherell, M. Taylor, S. and Yates, S. J. (eds) Discourse as Data. A guide for Analysis. London: Sage Publications, pp. 180 -228 ■ Garrett, P. 2010. Attitudes to Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ■ Hynninen, N. 2013. Language regulation in English as a Lingua Franca: Exploring language-regulatory practices in academic discourse. Unpublished doctoral thesis. University of Helsinki ■ Irvine, J. and Gal, S. 2000. Language Ideology and Linguistic Differentiation. In Kroskity, P. V. (ed). Regimes of Language: Language Ideologies, Polities, and Identities. New Mexico: School for American Research Press, pp. 35 -79 ■ Irvine, J. and Gal, S. 2009. Language-Ideological Processes. In Coupland, N. and Jaworski, A. (eds) The new sociolinguistics reader. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 375 -377 ■ Kamberelis G. and Dimitriadis, G. 2011. ‘Focus Groups: Contingent Articulations of Pedagogy, Politics, and Inquiry’ in Denzin, N. Y. and Lincoln, Y. S. (eds) The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research. London: Sage ■ Jenkins, J. 2015. ‘Repositioning English and Multilingualism in English as a Lingua Franca’. Englishes in Practice, 2(3): 49 -85

References II ■ Kitazawa, M. 2013. Approaching conceptualisations of English in East Asian contexts : ideas, ideology, and identification. Unpublished doctoral thesis. University of Southampton ■ Liebscher G. and Dailey-O’Cain, J. 2009. Language attitudes in interaction. Journal of Sociolinguistics. 13/2: 195 -222 ■ Parker, I. 2005. Qualitative Psychology: Introducing radical research. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press. ■ Potter, J. 1996. Attitudes, social representations, and discursive psychology. In M. Wetherell, (Ed. ) Identities, Groups and Social Issues London: Sage. pp. 119 -173. ■ Potter, J. 1998. Discursive social psychology: From attitudes to evaluations, European Review of Social Psychology, 9, 233 -266. ■ Potter, J. 2012. Discursive Psychology and Discourse Analysis. In Hamford, M. Gee, J. P. The Routledge Handbook of Discourse Analysis. London: Routledge ■ Potter, J. and Wetherell, M. 1987. Discourse and social psychology: beyond attitudes and behaviour. London: Sage ■ Preston, D. R. 1994. Content-oriented Discourse Analysis and Folk Linguistics. Language Sciences, 16/2: 285 -331 ■ Preston, D. R. 2002. ‘Language with an Attitude’ in J. K. Chambers, P. Trudgill and N. Schilling-Estes (eds), The Handbook of Language Variation and Change, Oxford: Blackwell. ■ Saldaña, J. 2016. The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers. London: Sage ■ Studer, P. 2014. Coping with English: students’ perceptions of their teachers’ linguistic competence in undergraduate science teaching. International Journal of Applied Linguistics: 1 -19 ■ Wetherell, M. 1998. Positioning and interpretative repertoires: Conversation analysis and poststructuralism in dialogue. Discourse and Society, 9/3 : 387– 412

Observation language practices through ELF Chittima Sangiamchit 24 June 2016 – Southampton

Aims: ELF in modern online context Cultural representation and cultural construction Online context: SNSs (Facebook) ICCs Perceptions

Multi-methodological approaches Online questionnaire Online observation Online context Research setting and site: FACEBOOK Focus group Interviews

Observation in my ELF online study ■ To investigate in what ways participants represent and construct their culture(s) through ELF in their interactions online. ■ To discover unspoken issues during the interviews or group discussion (Cohen, et at, 2011). ■ To cover data which is limited to participants’ memory, communicative ability, unnoticed issues, and only issues they prefer to talk about (Dörnyei, 2007; Cohen, et at, 2011). ■ To promote cross-checking in that what people do may differ from what they say they do. (Robson, 2002).

Types of observation in my ELF online study ■ The participant-as-observer – To observe online conversations of the participants in their Facebook’s walls. – My status was overt to the participants since acceptance as a member of their online groups was needed. – I blended into the medium in order to observe and record all participants’ conversations with their interlocutors from different lingua-cultural backgrounds without disturbing or joining their interactions. – I can gather rich description and ‘get a feel’ of participants’ interactions as all their interactions were closely observed and I became familiarized with how they communicated and represented and constructed their culture(s) as well as how they coped with the situations when communicative problems occurred.

Types of observation in my ELF online study ■ The observer-as-participant – To collect data from participants’ private messages in Facebook. – I was not a member of the group but known as a researcher. – The participants emailed their conversation records to me directly. – The participants’ interlocutors needed to consent to the observation of their private conversations.

Encountered limitations of ‘observation’ in my ELF online study ■ The lack of interpersonal relations between the researcher and participants which result in the limited number of research participants. ■ It is difficult to approach interlocutors of the participants and ask for their explanation about the communicative meanings (which possibly contain different point of views to the participants), regarding to these important factors, i. e. the lack of interpersonal relationship between the researcher and the participants’ interlocutors, the variety of the participants’ interlocutors without their contact information, their unavailability to take part in a research observation.

Analytical frameworks for the observational method in my ELF online study ■ Content analysis – To describes patterns and trends in communicative contents and reveals main ideas and/or attitudes of participants through systematic and recursive coding (Cohen, et al, 2011). – A total of 139 scripts or 209 Microsoft word pages of online conversation records were collected. – Preconceived codes consist of three main categories based on research questions, including ‘the roles of cultures’, ‘intercultural communicative competence’, and ‘perceptions of English use for online intercultural communication’. – There also interesting data emerged during coding process about cultural and language use for online intercultural communication, consisting of ‘cultural (and language) fluidity’, ‘language choices’, and ‘cultural comparison’.

Analytical frameworks for the observational method in my ELF online study ■ Multimodal analysis – is an inter-disciplinary approach to understand communication and representation as more than language and attends systematically to the social interpretation of a range of forms of making meaning (Jewitt, 2016). – ‘Social semiotic multimodal analysis’– ‘mapping how modal resources are used by people in a given community/ social context, in other words signmaking as a social process (Jewitt, 2009).

References ■ Cohen, Louis; Manion, Lawrence; Morrison, Keith. (2011). Research methods in education (7 th edition). Oxon. Routledge. ■ Dörnyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics: Quantitative, qualitative and mixed methodologies. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ■ Jewitt, Carey. (2009). The Routledge handbook of multimodal analysis. Oxon. Routledge. ■ Jewitt, Carey. (2016). Multimodal analysis. In Georgakopoulou, A. and Spilioti, T. (2016). The Routledge Handbook of Language and Digital Communication. Oxon. Routledge. ■ Robson, Colin. (2002). Real world research (2 nd edition). Oxford: Blackwell.