Discover 9 proven methods in ASSESSING LANGUAGE ATTITUDES and avoid common pitfalls. Find out more about speaker evaluation and societal treatment studies in applied linguistics.
Table of Contents
- How do we define LANGUAGE ATTITUDES?
- 1. Assessing Language Attitudes using the direct approach: the prevalent way of prompting for attitudes in a straightforward manner
- Method 1: Elicit evaluation through direct questioning within questionnaires.
- Method 2: Collect feedback with direct questioning within focus group discussions.
- Method 3: Construct personal narratives of language attitudes with direct questions in individual interviews.
- 2. Assessing Language Attitudes using the indirect approach
- Method 4: Extract value judgements using guises.
- Method 5: Administer rapid anonymous surveys.
- Method 6: Role-play in carefully crafted scenarios with reflection.
- 3. Assessing Language Attitudes using the societal treatment methods
- Method 7: Survey the linguistic landscapes.
- Method 8: Conduct linguistic ethnographic observations.
- Method 9: Analyse discourses in the public domain.
- Conclusion: Integrating to formulate the full picture of language attitudes
- Recommended Readings
- References
LANGUAGE ATTITUDES underpin the linguistic choices we make, especially pertaining to the ways we select and learn a second language or foreign language.
Throughout my career in language education and research work in applied linguistics, I have had the opportunity to worked with numerous learners on their language acquisition journeys (including native speakers or L1 learners). During this period, I have encountered an array of language attitudes which are closely associated with their motivation for language learning and language choices in different aspects of their lives. So much so, that I feel that language educators should be very sensitive to the role of language attitudes in driving language learning.
As such, I strongly believe that we, as language educators, should develop the competencies in assessing language attitudes of our learners and our stakeholders. By doing so, we can make informed curriculum decisions, engage stakeholders effectively, and adopt teaching approaches that are truly impactful.
That being said, how should we go about assessing language attitudes? This article sets out to answer that very question. We’d navigate the intriguing world on the investigation of language attitudes, as I offer valuable insights that can greatly help us collect credible evidence on attitudes towards languages and language varieties / dialects of our learners and stakeholders.
Get real-time updates and BE PART OF THE CONVERSATIONS by joining LEA’s online communities on your favourite platforms! Connect with like-minded language educators and get inspired for your next language lesson.
How do we define LANGUAGE ATTITUDES?
Before we start, let us be very clear on what we mean by “LANGUAGE ATTITUDES”. As a premise, the notion of “attitudes” is a mental construct which relates to the evaluative orientation towards a subject matter (e.g. an object, person, abstract idea) (Albarracin & Shavitt, 2018; Garrett, 2007, 2010; Garrett, Coupland & Williams, 2003). To put it simply, there can be positive attitudes or negative attitudes.
With LANGUAGE ATTITUDES, the subject matter is “language” and can be understood initially as the evaluation of different languages (including dialects or varieties) (Dragojevic, Fasoli, Cramer & Rakić, 2021).
However, based on research on language and social psychology, language frequently serves as an indicator of one’s membership within a particular social or cultural group (e.g. Mandarin to Chinese, Hindi to Indians) (Bekker, 2019; Holmes, 2013). In that light, LANGUAGE ATTITUDES can also refer to the evaluation of the speech communities that use a specific language or dialect / variety (Dragojevic, Fasoli, Cramer & Rakić, 2021; Giles, Hewstone & Ball, 1983).
To unpack the concept a bit further, research on LANGUAGE ATTITUDES generally deconstruct the concept through a tripartite structure, encompassing three distinctly interrelated dimensions (Garrett, 2007, 2010; Garrett, Coupland & Williams, 2003):
- Cognitive: Beliefs we hold about the world, and the associations we establish among elements of societal importance (e.g. whether certain languages are associated with employability and economic opportunities);
- Affective: Feelings about a given language or dialect / variety (e.g. whether we simply like or dislike different language varieties);
- Behavioural: Inclinations to act in certain ways, maybe in coincidence with cognitive and affective dimensions (e.g. adults investing time and money to learn an additional language).
If I were to frame it from a synthesised perspective, we can also say that LANGUAGE ATTITUDES encompass a complex network of beliefs, feelings and behaviours that an individual or a community holds or demonstrates towards particular languages and/or their speech communities.
While we generally see language attitude research focusing on either the evaluation of languages or its representative speech communities, many sub-themes have also emerged with the field. These sub-themes offer us a deeper understanding of how we can formulate our own study of language attitudes within the specific contexts of our teaching practices (Garrett, Coupland & Williams, 2003):
- Attitudes to learning an additional language;
- Attitudes to a specific minority language (such as Swahili in the UK);
- Attitudes to lessons within second language learning;
- Attitudes of parents to language learning;
- Attitudes to the uses of a specific language;
- Attitudes to language planning and language policies;
- Attitudes to language choice and preferences; and
- Attitudes to language variation in general.
An important note for us is also the recognition that people maintain language attitudes towards a wide spectrum of elements, including but not limited to written conventions, vocabulary choices, grammatical structures, accents and pronunciation – and even the speed of speech. In our own “study”, we may also want to be cognisant of the various levels of language and address those fit for the purpose of our own context.
In assessing language attitudes, there are three main categories of research methods that are used: the direct approach, the indirect approach and the societal treatment methods. Every category has its merits and limitations pertaining to our use cases in language education which we would explore further.
1. Assessing Language Attitudes using the direct approach: the prevalent way of prompting for attitudes in a straightforward manner
This category of methods might resonate most with us, given the prevalence of surveys we encounter throughout the year. Furthermore, what could be more straightforward than directly asking about an individual’s beliefs, emotions, and behaviours regarding a specific topic? This is the gist of the direct approach.
But of course, the direct approach does not imply the exclusive use of questionnaire surveys. It can include focus group discussions and semi-structured / structured interviews.
When using the direct approach, researchers typically ask individuals direct questions about their language evaluation and preferences. They invite participants to explicitly express their attitudes towards various language phenomena.
Method 1: Elicit evaluation through direct questioning within questionnaires.
The use of questionnaire surveys is the most commonly adopted method, not without its reasons. In these questionnaires, participants generally report their attitudes in response to the presentation of the language or linguistic phenomenon presented within a specific context.
The possible ways in which our participants can report their attitudes are as follows:
- Select “yes” or “true” in contrast to “no” or “false” as a clear-cut dichotomous choice in response to a question;
- Provide ratings on a categorical scale (e.g. 7-point Likert Scale) of their subjective thoughts which can be numerical (e.g. 1, 2, 3) or qualitative (e.g. strongly agree, mildly disagree);
- Provide ratings on a continuum scale (e.g. gradience) to estimate the finer degree of their evaluation; and
- Elaborate further in short sentences or paragraphs when all choices available does not reflect one’s evaluation neatly.
Questions can be formulated as pure questions or as declarative statements that are supposed to reflect or contrast participants’ attitudes. For instance, if we want to contextualise more for the language classrooms, it can take the form of “How much do you like learning XX language?” or “I like learning XX language”.
Pros of this method:
- Economical (e.g. lower costs in terms of manpower, time and budget)
- Scalability to achieve a large sample size (especially with the use of online platforms)
- Potential anonymity for our participants (e.g. less intrusive)
- Standardised stimuli and responses (makes it easier to compare and contrast for analysis)
- Efficiency (e.g. data can be collected quite rapidly within a short period of time, ease of analysis post-collection)
- Ease of replication and adaptation (e.g. for re-use later)
- Less pressure on our participants (e.g. can answer it quickly or leisurely)
Cons of this method:
- Not suitable for illiterate participants whose views matter
- Possible misinterpretation of questions or statements
- Less control over quality of responses (e.g. our participants may just want to complete it quickly without giving much thought)
- Limitation in nuances once the questions or statements are cast in stone (e.g. unlikely to allow clarification)
- Subject to participants’ personal biases (e.g. inexperience in doing such surveys, limits of scale in eliciting the finer responses)
- Possible incompletion
- Not suitable for sharing of sensitive information or stories
Method 2: Collect feedback with direct questioning within focus group discussions.
Focus group discussions are also widely used methods in the elicitation of attitudes directly. Participants can be organised in focus groups if we want to minimise the sessions involved and that we see value in them interacting with one another. Analysing how our participants relate to, interpret and construct meanings from the engagement on the critical questions in a given context provides crucial insights.
Similar to the management of any classroom discussion, in order to ensure its productivity, it is imperative that we carefully plan our questions to encourage open discourse (e.g. what-, how- and why- questions) while avoiding closed-ended inquiries (e.g. is this A or B?).
In addition, we should try to temporarily relinquish our authority figure role and assume the role of a thought facilitator – so that our language learners or stakeholders would not hold back their most truthful opinions.
Pros of this method:
- Exchange of ideas and experiences amongst participants (e.g. draws out rich data that can be built upon during the facilitation process)
- A wide range of perspectives within a single session
- More efficient as a qualitative method
- Our learners should be familiar with this method (e.g. akin to classroom discussion) and can respond more readily
- Can be conducted as part of a language learning activity
- More engaging than faceless surveys
- More efficient analysis of data
Cons of this method:
- Dynamics of participants need to be managed (e.g. prevention of conversation hoarding, making sure to give everyone a voice, shy participants)
- Possible disproportionate allocation of speaking time
- Participants may have tendency to converge on certain views, usually led by the first speaker to answer the question
- Skilful facilitation is a must for focus group discussion to be effective (e.g. we need to manage our own biases and be as neutral as possible)
Method 3: Construct personal narratives of language attitudes with direct questions in individual interviews.
A simple alternative to the focus group discussion, would be individual interviews – usually semi-structured or fully structured. Interviews typically delve deeper on a personal level, allowing us to uncover detailed personal narratives concerning language attitudes.
As the terms “semi-structured” or “structured” suggest, there is usually a pre-determined set of questions – not too different from the earlier focus group discussion. Standardised questions also make it easier to analyse and compare responses.
However, in contrast to focus group discussions (where care is taken to ensure all voices are heard), individual interviews allow more leeway in shaping the interviews based on the interviewees’ responses. The key value proposition is to uncover the intricate details within personal narratives, that is more difficult to arrive at in group settings.
Pros of this method:
- Space to establish personal rapport with interviewee (especially if the interviewee is our learner) to generate more insightful responses
- Flexibility to probe further, ask follow-up questions or customise questions according to context
- Accessible for the interviewee (can be guided inidividually)
- Can adapt the order of questions even if they are structured
- Interviewee usually more responsive within an individual setting than in group setting
- Potential for very rich qualitative data
Cons of this method:
- Time-consuming, given that it involves only one individual per session
- Power relations to be managed (e.g. teacher-student) especially within a one-to-one setting
- Lack of anonymity
- Management of biases (e.g. social desirability bias, acquiescence bias)
- We must be skilled in questioning and time management (e.g. able to ask more when interviewees are more silent, able to interject skilfully when interviewees speak extraneously off-track)
2. Assessing Language Attitudes using the indirect approach
While the direct approach has been the most popular approach in the assessment of language attitudes (Garrett, 2010), owing to its simplicity and intuitive nature, there is a prevailing consensus among scholars that using this approach alone may still pose challenges in fully uncovering the complex nature of attitudes (Garrett, 2007; Holmes, 2013).
In light of this, implicit measures of attitudes were introduced which then inspired a trend of using an indirect approach in drawing out attitudes (Albarracin & Shavitt, 2018). This category presents an alternative set of methods that prompt participants to express their attitudes indirectly, responding to the stimuli provided, hence the term “indirect approach”.
Note that questionnaire surveys, focus group discussion and interviews can also be used to implement the indirect approach. The key difference, of course, is how the subject matter is presented alongside the deliberate design of the questions.
Method 4: Extract value judgements using guises.
The usage of guises to elicit language attitudes has been an integral part of sociolinguistic research since the 1960s, through the important innovations of Lambert and his colleagues (1960, 1965). This method involves presenting participants with similar content in different languages or variants – contingent on the specific object of study.
So, how is this done? Basically, the researcher (ourselves in this case) recruits speakers proficient in the languages or dialects / varieties of interest. These speakers then read a similar piece of content (e.g. a simulated public service announcement, a persuasive coffee advertisement) in different languages / dialects which are then dubbed as audio recordings.
Subsequently, these recordings are played to the participants, who are led to believe that they are encountering a different speaker with each recording. They are then prompted to evaluate the speakers using a range of metrics that are pertinent to the attitudes we seek to investigate (e.g. clarity of speech, solidarity with speakers, engagement levels).
Ideally, our preferred approach is to maintain consistency in the speaker, ensuring that all content is voiced by a single speaker (i.e. the original “matched guise” technique) in each individual study. This then allows us to make valid inferences that participants’ responses are primarily driven by differences in languages or dialects / varieties and not influenced by the individual speakers per se.
I do note that some of us may be tempted to become the speaker ourselves, knowing how skilful many of us are. Furthermore, why spend that additional time to look for someone else when we can perfectly do that task well ourselves? My word of caution is that: our participants would rate us based on their prior knowledge of us – so that may not draw out the most authentic attitudes.
We know that it is very challenging to recruit such speakers. Also, participants may also come to discern that a single speaker is behind all the content. This can also evoke suspicions on the intent of the research. As such, researchers in the field have also switched to the alternate practice of recruiting different speakers for different content (i.e. the verbal guises technique).
In that situation, to maintain the integrity of our research, we can take measures such as varying the sequence in which recordings are presented or supplementing our data collection with direct inquiries (e.g. personal preferences for the topic, prior familiarity with the content).
This is done to eliminate potential extraneous factors that could influence our participants’ evaluations. The fundamental principle guiding the approach is to ensure that participants make their judgments solely on the basis of the speakers themselves.
The value of using matched guises lies in its ability to reveal implicit biases and preferences that participants may not openly express. By comparing their reactions and responses to the different guises, language educators can gain insights into the underlying attitudes and perceptions that individuals hold towards specific languages or accents.
Pros of this method:
- Higher potential to draw out “private attitudes” (those that we would not disclose in public)
- Space to manipulate the different levels of variation between languages or dialects/varieties (e.g. level of lexicon, phonological, syntax)
Cons of this method:
- Higher costs involved (e.g. production of recordings)
- Difficulty in finding the right “guises” (e.g. one speaker who can be identified as multiple speakers, multiple speakers who are deemed as comparable on many interacting factors)
- Needs to account for interacting factors that may affect the audio recording (comparability of voice quality, speed, intonation)
- Lack of context for participants to make those evaluations
- Pre-supposed stereotypical ways of presenting the speech in different languages or dialects / varieties
Method 5: Administer rapid anonymous surveys.
As a research instrument, rapid anonymous surveys was born out of ingenuity of William Labov, the pioneering scholar who founded variationist sociolinguistics.
In the study that gave him his fame, “The social stratification of (r) in new york city department stores”, Labov formulated this method to elicit spontaneous speech data from employees across three distinct department stores situated within New York City, each representing a different socioeconomic class.
Posing as a customer, he would approach the employees in these department stores to ask for directions which would naturally invite the employees to use the (r) sound (e.g. fourth floor).
By examining the speech patterns of employees across these diverse settings, Labov then sought to discern whether variations in social class influence the pronunciation of the (r) sound. The results were interesting, as Labov did find significantly different pronunciation habits of (r) across the various socioeconomic classes.
So, how can such a method be used for the elicitation of language attitudes, especially in our educational context? First and foremost, we can be very sure that we are not able to be the “impersonator”. Unless we have shapeshifting skills, our engagement of learners or stakeholders posing as someone else would probably prompt other responses other than attitudes to language. So primarily, we need to engage the assistance of a “research assistant” (e.g. spouse, friend, child with parental consent) our learners or stakeholders are less familiar with.
Second, we need to identify the situations whereby this “research assistant” can interact with our learners or stakeholders organically. This can be during school events such as open houses, festive celebrations, carnivals or bonding activities organised by parent associations.
Third, we have to design scenarios where the “research assistant” then engage our targeted learners or stakeholders in quick question-and-answer episodes related to the target languages that we want to investigate. Below are some common scenarios for consideration:
- Asking for directions;
- Looking for a specific person (say yourself);
- Introducing another upcoming event like an appointed spokesperson;
- Handing out tips on self-studying or parent-child reading;
- Management of registration processes to a low-stake activity;
Note that every episode can be focused on a specific language or dialect / variety of interest (e.g. each learner or stakeholder only encountering a single episode), or in a code-switching mode, depending on our personal questions of interest. The key principle is to maintain authenticity, so the “research assistant” must caution not to invite suspicions that he/she is up to something peculiar.
Pros of this method:
- Efficiency in collection of data
- Targeted subjects behaving in natural state since they do not know they are “studied”
- Availability of existing events as natural experimental sites for data collection (i.e. no need to deliberately set up a study site)
Cons of this method:
- Inability to establish clear characteristics of actual surveyed subjects (e.g. exact age, nationality)
- Potential of selection bias (e.g. “research assistant” may be inclined to only select participants based implicit personal preferences)
- No other form of documentation other than “research assistant” or observer’s note-taking (e.g. no photo-taking or filiming) – fundamental principle to maintain anonymity and privacy of participants since no prior consent was obtained
- Large grey space of inference and questionable assumptions
- Require a critical number of participants to then be able to make valid inference about patterns
Method 6: Role-play in carefully crafted scenarios with reflection.
So, we see that rapid anonymous surveys work like those social experiments that we often see on social media – except that we are guided by a stricter ethical framework that should keep us from doing documentation that would reveal our participants’ identity.
However, this also means there might be too much guessing involved and we want some other method to compensate for the limitations. This is where the current method which emphasises the use of role-play scenarios takes on a pivotal role.
In role-play scenarios, our participants are assigned specific roles before they engage in simulated conversations or interactions that mimic real-life situations. Taking reference from the scenarios cited in the previous section, one participant can assume the role of the “research assistant” while some other participants as the general public within the selected “event” (e.g. school open houses, festive celebrations). Other participants can become observers.
As the scenarios play out, we do little to intervene and let our selected “research assistant” exhaust (or maximise the possible interactions within the given time) his/her efforts. Following that, we can then facilitate a conversation which evaluates the interactions with focus on indirect evaluation of language attitudes (e.g. take reference from questions we may use in the “guise” method).
Pros of this method:
- Can be conducted as part of a language learning activity
- Certain degree of emotional engagement and representation of actual reality
- Controlled environment
- Additional space to develop empathy
- Consequences of language attitudes may be revealed
- Opportunities to probe into factors of concern (e.g. can question assumptions if participants responded with biases or demonstrate stereotypical behaviours that are not reflective of reality)
Cons of this method:
- Time-consuming to setup and manage
- Certain degree of artificiality (e.g. “research participant” not performing according to plan, “general public participants” not behaving in their authentic natural manner)
- Subject to prior dynamics of the group of participants involved (e.g. real-life relationship dynamics between learners)
Join our mailing list!
Receive insights and EXCLUSIVE resources on language education in a monthly newsletter, fresh into your inbox. No Fees, No Spam, so No Worries!
3. Assessing Language Attitudes using the societal treatment methods
The third category of methods are not the conventional methods we may be familiar with. First, while the population we are interested in is still our targeted subjects of interest, we do not directly engage with them when using these methods.
Second, the data under consideration typically resides within the public domain. Technically, anyone can replicate and collect the same set of data we may have collected (e.g. request similar data from the same institutions, collate and replicate the evidence following in our footsteps).
So, what exactly are such societal treatment methods in general? Fundamentally, it is the documentation and observation of how languages or dialects/varieties of interest are manifested in the public domain. The data in essence refers to a whole range of artefacts we can gather through our own purposeful observation and documentation, or via administrative or logistical means (e.g. requesting from the owner organisations), with many examples as follows (Garrett, 2010):
- Government documents;
- Educational documents;
- Advertisements;
- Published literature;
- Cartoons;
- Linguistic landscape;
- Media materials;
- Social media; and many more!
Within these artefacts, we can derive the actual language practices – those that exist within the behavioural domain – that may coincide or be inconsistent with what we might have found through the direct and indirect methods.
Notwithstanding these, I would only share on 3 main methods relevant for our use cases – we are only interested in assessing the attitudes of our learners and stakeholders to our target languages and dialects/varieties.
Method 7: Survey the linguistic landscapes.
To put it broadly, a linguistic landscape denotes the combined construction of visible expressions of language found within a designated area of investigation, usually a public space. In the current age, virtual spaces (e.g. discussion forums) can also be arguable sites of linguistic landscapes.
Within this context, any physical entity showcasing the usage of language (often explicit, but may also include implicit elements), can serve as an item of inquiry. This scope extends to dynamic elements such as mobile signage, which momentarily enters the space.
How is a linguistic landscape relevant to language attitudes? First, it assumes informational and symbolic roles in representation of and purposefully for the speech communities residing in the specific area. It can shape people’s beliefs in the vitality of languages within the given area (Landry & Bourhis, 1997).
Adding on to that, a linguistic landscape also reflects the dynamics of language power and status within a particular sociolinguistic setting (Cenoz & Gorter, 2006; Mensel, Marten & Gorter, 2012; Puzey, 2012). It adds an additional layer of nuances into the beliefs and values of the agents interacting with those languages.
Of course, for our use cases, we are only interested in linguistic landscapes that can reflect the language attitudes of our learners and stakeholders. The larger neighbourhoods may be relevant in this case but may also be an over-extension.
How then can we identify and scope linguistic landscapes specific to our learners or stakeholders? This require us to find out more about their favourite hangouts, their home environments, their residential neighbourhoods, or any particular space where they have larger agency to decide what are to be displayed (e.g. learners’ corner within a classroom).
Once we have done so, we can then take a “tour” around these landscapes and conduct our survey. We can take note of the languages used on the artefacts. Notably, we can observe the relative prevalence of target languages of interest and the types of messages conveyed in each language. Importantly as a part of the exercise, we can also document any instances of language mixing or code-switching, as such evidence can provide insights into language preferences and usage patterns.
For a more thorough discussion of linguistic landscapes and tips on leveraging them for pedagogical purposes (including some tips which are related to documentation), do check out this comprehensive guide (link).
Pros of this method:
- Can be conducted as part of a language learning activity (our learners can become our “research assistants”)
- Organic environment of linguistic behaviours
- Readily available in public domain
- Can be collected in intensive episodes
- Flexible data collection periods
Cons of this method:
- May be seasonal in nature (e.g. any snapshot in time may not be a comprehensive representation)
- Not easily quantifiable or qualifiable
- Criteria of inclusion or exclusion may be challenging for new researchers
Method 8: Conduct linguistic ethnographic observations.
If we were to provide an academic definition for linguistic ethnography, we can probably take a whole thesis (read this article). As a working reductionist definition, though, linguistic ethnography is really about unobtrusively observing the agents of language practices doing all their languaging activities (e.g. our learners and stakeholders in our case) in their natural environments without any interference or intervention from the researchers (aka us).
This form of observational study profoundly illuminates the multifaceted relationships between language use, social structures, and cultural norms, thus providing valuable insights into the socio-cultural underpinnings of communication.
Among all the methods presented in this article, this is the one where we should possess the utmost exclusive access to our learners. Given our daily interactions with them, we have ample opportunities to observe them in their authentic states – with immense potential to gain insights into their attitudes to our target languages.
With our stakeholders, we would also have some form of “exclusive access” during special events (e.g. parent-teacher conferences, school events, welcome orientation).
In a way, this method doesn’t strictly belong to the “public domain”, as researchers from outside our institutions would require permission to engage with our learners and stakeholders. Nonetheless, the data is readily available and presented right before our eyes as part of our daily mundane.
What is required of us are the deliberate effort and research tools (e.g. proper instrument to do documentation). Adding a word of caution though, that we should not maintain personally identifiable data for ethical purposes (e.g. do not record exact names even if we know the students we are observing).
So, wherein lies the episodes to be observed? Below are some possible scenarios where we could be more intentional in our observation and documentation:
- Discussions and languaging during our lessons (or other academic lessons);
- Informal interactions before and after formal lessons as we enter or leave our classes;
- Speech behaviours during unstructured and structured breaks (e.g. having their meals in the canteen);
- Peer engagement or teacher-peer engagement during non-academic lessons (e.g. physical education) and school-organised learning camps or trips;
- Learners’ language practices at official formal events (e.g. student leader speeches, appointed school podcast hosts)
- Stakeholders’ discussion and languaging during official meetings (e.g. parents’ association, school board);
- Teacher-parent conversations during parent-teacher conferences; and
- Various episodes of authentic communication during grand school events.
The fundamental intent of conducting linguistic ethnographic observations is really to gather data that allows us to analyse conversational contexts, discourse structures, thematic variations, language choices and language practices that reveal different agents’ language attitudes. The value proposition also lies in the “unfiltered” nature when participants are not placed within a formal research context (e.g. lab experiment, completing a formal questionnaire).
Pros of this method:
- Organic environment of linguistic behaviours
- Readily available in a domain accessible to us
- Can be collected in intensive episodes
- Flexible data collection periods
Cons of this method:
- Require substantial amount of time and patience
- Need to manage presence to prevent distortion of authentic behaviours (e.g. our learners and stakeholders may adapt their behaviours noting that we are present and taking notes)
- Mindful suspension of pre-conceived assumptions by ourselves (e.g. prevent our own biases from excluding data that can be important)
Method 9: Analyse discourses in the public domain.
This method is a close relative of the previous one. When we conduct linguistic ethnographic observations, we could be analysing their discourses (both formal and informal) in the scenarios within our institution.
However, in this age and time, our learners and stakeholders could have already demonstrated much of their beliefs, preferences and behaviours on existing forums or media accessible to public (e.g. Reddit).
How would our learners and stakeholders think and talk about our target languages when they have the opportunity to do so in a non-research context? That is the key question that we seek to answer.
To achieve this objective, we can venture into various online forums and social media spaces (ensuring ethical compliance by restricting our observations to only publicly accessible content which do not require authenticated access) where we are reasonably assured of our learners’ and stakeholders’ active presence.
Combing through these spaces, we can conduct comprehensive searches to identify topics relevant to our target languages (e.g. language use, language learning experiences, and career planning that interfaces with language) and observe the discourses generated by our learners and stakeholders. We would then be able to gauge the general sentiments, biases, and stereotypes associated with different languages or dialects.
What makes such data truly remarkable is its organic nature and its immediate relevance to our inquiries about language attitudes. Should it exist, it would be exceptionally valuable, and possesses a level of authenticity that surpasses any data intentionally assembled within a research setting.
Pros of this method:
- Organic environment of language attitudes across all 3 dimensions
- Readily available in a domain accessible to us
- Can be collected in intensive episodes
- Flexible data collection periods
- Higher potential to identify genuine attitudes (e.g. people willingly share without a formal agenda)
Cons of this method:
- Subject to chance (e.g. we may not get any data at all)
- May be seasonal in nature (e.g. any snapshot in time may not be a comprehensive representation)
- May be challenging to establish the real identities behind the opinions in the data (e.g. anonymity of online presence)
- Potential of selection bias (e.g. only certain types of learners and stakeholders may participate in such discussions)
Making a difference in language education, one sip at a time. Support my work with a coffee?
Conclusion: Integrating to formulate the full picture of language attitudes
So, we have traversed the 9 different methods that can be used in assessing language attitudes of our learners and stakeholders. With every method, we may be deconstructing language attitudes into the 3 dimensions and the different facets. We are also leveraging the strengths of each method to offset particular shortcomings of another. In combination, we can then reconstruct the complete picture of the language attitudes.
Much like many aspects of social sciences research, there is seldom a single silver bullet that can overcome all the limitations while upholding both quality and validity. An integrated approach which combines some, if not all, the methods mentioned in the article would be our best bet in gaining the most rigorous and robust evidence of language attitudes in our learners and stakeholders. Hopefully, the insights gained affect language learning experiences of our learners in a positive way.
Thank you for reading! If you like what you are reading, do subscribe to our mailing list to receive updated resources and tips for language educators. Please also feel free to provide us any feedback or suggestions on content that you would like covered.
Recommended Readings
- Albarracin, D., & Shavitt, S. (2018). Attitudes and Attitude Change. Annual Review of Psychology, 69, 299-327.
- Bekker, I. (2019). Language Attitudes. In Darquennes, J., Salmons, J.C., & Vandenbussche, W. (Eds.), Language Contact: An International Handbook (pp. 234-245). Berlin Germany: De Gruyter Mouton.
- Dragojevic, M., Fasoli, F., Cramer, J., & Rakić, T. (2021). Toward a Century of Language Attitudes Research: Looking Back and Moving Forward. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 40(1), 60-79.
- Garrett, P. (2007). Language Attitudes. In Llamas, C., Mullany, L., and Stockwell, P. (Eds.), The Routledge Companion to Sociolinguistics (pp. 116 – 121). Abingdon UK: Routledge.
- Garrett, P. (2010). Attitudes to Language. New York USA: Cambridge University Press.
- Garrett, P., Coupland, N., & Williams, A. (2003). Investigating Language Attitudes: Social Meanings of Dialect, Ethnicity and Performance. Cardiff UK: University of Wales Press.
- Giles, H., Hewstone, M., & Ball, P. (1983). Language attitudes in multilingual settings: Prologue with priorities. Journal of Multilingual & Multicultural Development, 4(2-3), 81-100.
- Holmes, J. (2013). An Introduction to Sociolinguistics (Fourth Edition). Abingdon UK: Routledge.
- Van Herk, G. (2012). What is Sociolinguistics?. Chichester UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
References
Albarracin, D., & Shavitt, S. (2018). Attitudes and Attitude Change. Annual Review of Psychology, 69, 299-327.
Bekker, I. (2019). Language Attitudes. In Darquennes, J., Salmons, J.C., & Vandenbussche, W. (Eds.), Language Contact: An International Handbook (pp. 234-245). Berlin Germany: De Gruyter Mouton.
Cenoz, J., & Gorter, D. (2006). Linguistic Landscape and Minority Languages. In Gorter, D. (Ed.), Linguistic Landscape: A New Approach to Multilingualism (pp. 67-80). Clevedon UK: Routledge.
Dragojevic, M., Fasoli, F., Cramer, J., & Rakić, T. (2021). Toward a Century of Language Attitudes Research: Looking Back and Moving Forward. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 40(1), 60-79.
Gaies, S.J., & Beebe, J.D. (1991). The Matched-Guise Technique for Measuring Attitudes and Their Implications for Language Education: A Critical Assessment. ERIC.
Garrett, P. (2007). Language Attitudes. In Llamas, C., Mullany, L., and Stockwell, P. (Eds.), The Routledge Companion to Sociolinguistics (pp. 116 – 121). Abingdon UK: Routledge.
Garrett, P. (2010). Attitudes to Language. New York USA: Cambridge University Press.
Garrett, P., Coupland, N., & Williams, A. (2003). Investigating Language Attitudes: Social Meanings of Dialect, Ethnicity and Performance. Cardiff UK: University of Wales Press.
Giles, H., Hewstone, M., & Ball, P. (1983). Language attitudes in multilingual settings: Prologue with priorities. Journal of Multilingual & Multicultural Development, 4(2-3), 81-100.
Holmes, J. (2013). An Introduction to Sociolinguistics (Fourth Edition). Abingdon UK: Routledge.
Hyrkestedt, I. and Kalaja, P. (1998). Attitudes toward English and its functions in Finland: a discourse-analytic study. World Englishes, 17, 345–57.
Labov, W. (2006). The Social Stratification of English in New York City (Second Edition). New York USA: Cambridge University Press.
Lamb, M. (2011). Language Attitudes. In Murray, G., Gao, X. A., and Lamb, T. (Eds.), Identity, Motivation and Autonomy in Language (pp. 116 – 121). Bristol UK: Multilingual Matters.
Lambert, W.E., Anisfeld, M., & Yeni-Komshian, G. (1965). Evaluation reactions of Jewish and Arab adolescents to dialect and language variations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2(1), 84–90.
Lambert, W.E., Hodgson, R.C., Gardner, R.C., & Fillenbaum, S. (1960). Evaluational reactions to spoken languages. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 60(1), 44–51.
Landry, R., & Bourhis, R.Y. (1997). Linguistic landscape and ethnolinguistic vitality: An empirical study. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 16(1), 23–49.
Mensel, L.V., Marten, H.F., & Gorter, D. (2012). Minority Languages through the Lens of the Linguistic Landscape. In Gorter, D., Marten, H.F., & Mensel, L.V. (Eds.), Minority Languages in the Linguistic Landscape (pp. 1-15). Basingstoke UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Puzey, G. (2012). Two- Way Traffic: How Linguistic Landscapes Reflect and Influence the Politics of Language. In Gorter, D., Marten, H.F., & Mensel, L.V. (Eds.), Minority Languages in the Linguistic Landscape (pp. 127-147). Basingstoke UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Schuman, H. (2001). Attitude-Surveys: Question-Answer Process. In Mesthrie, R. (Ed.), Concise Encyclopedia of Sociolinguistics (pp. 761 – 765). Oxford UK: Elsevier.
Shaw, S., Copland, F., & Snell, J. (2015). An Introduction to Linguistic Ethnography: Interdisciplinary Explorations. In Snell, J., Shaw, S., & Copland, F. (Eds.), Linguistic Ethnography: Interdisciplinary Explorations (pp. 1-13). Basingstoke UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Van Herk, G. (2012). What is Sociolinguistics?. Chichester UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
