This article was downloaded by: [Tulane University]

On: 04 September 2014, At: 04:33

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Multilingual and

Multicultural Development
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rmmm20

A model and questionnaire of language

identity in Iran: a structural equation
modelling approach
a a
Mohammad Khatib & Saeed Rezaei
a
English Language and Literature Department, Allameh Tabataba'i
University, Tehran, Iran
Published online: 20 May 2013.

To cite this article: Mohammad Khatib & Saeed Rezaei (2013) A model and questionnaire of
language identity in Iran: a structural equation modelling approach, Journal of Multilingual and
Multicultural Development, 34:7, 690-708, DOI: 10.1080/01434632.2013.796958

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2013.796958

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
 Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 2013
Vol. 34, No. 7, 690
708, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2013.796958

A model and questionnaire of language identity in Iran: a structural

equation modelling approach
Mohammad Khatib and Saeed Rezaei*

English Language and Literature Department, Allameh Tabataba’i University, Tehran, Iran
(Received 14 November 2012; final version received 27 March 2013)

This study consisted of three main phases including the development of a

Downloaded by [Tulane University] at 04:33 04 September 2014

hypothesised model of language identity in Iran, developing and validating a

questionnaire based on this model and finally testing the model based on the
questionnaire data. In the first phase of this research, a hypothesised model of
language identity in Iran was developed based on the literature and consultations
with a panel of experts. After that, a questionnaire was developed and validated
to tap the components of the hypothesised model. In order to develop this
questionnaire, the researchers went through a number of rigorous steps including
content selection, item generation, writing the rating scales and personal informa-
tion part, expert opinion, item revision, initial piloting, reliability estimation and
finally validation. The results of the questionnaire administration indicated that
the reliability of the questionnaire estimated through Cronbach’s alpha was
0.73 and exploratory factor analysis also identified six factors. As the final phase
of this study, structural equation modelling through AMOS 21 was utilised to test
the model. The initial results showed a poor fit model; however, the model was
trimmed by removing one item from the questionnaire, and final statistical indices
indicated that the model was fit.
Keywords: language identity model; questionnaire; structural equation modelling;
Iran; validity; reliability

Introduction
Language as an identification badge provides one of the best telling clues for people’s
identity and where they belong to. This symbiotic relationship between language and
identity is immensely supported in the literature and recent publications also
corroborate this close affinity (Block 2007; Edwards 2009; Joseph 2004; Liamas and
Watt 2010; Ricento 2005). In spite of this close relation between language and
identity, the fuzziness and malleability of identity has limited the studies to mainly
qualitative approaches. Since identity research was initially conducted by anthro-
pologists, sociologists and psychologists, a review of studies in these disciplines
indicate that quantitative approaches are more welcomed in these fields (e.g. Phinney
1992; Van Zomeren, Postmes, and Spears 2008). This is in sharp contrast to identity
research in language studies where quantitative methods are usually neglected.
Nevertheless, this tendency towards quantitative research in neighbouring disciplines
has also affected language identity research and recent studies have also endorsed
this trend (e.g. Ehala 2012; Polat and Mahalingappa 2010). Though qualitative

*Corresponding author. Email: srezaei@sharif.edu

# 2013 Taylor & Francis

 Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 691

approaches such as ethnography, interviewing and diary studies have been very
fruitful, the best way to overcome the shortcomings in these research methods seems
to be developing a framework or model for research. Attempts to develop such
models have been very successful and include models of language, culture and
identity in different countries and contexts including Israel (Golan-Cook and
Olshtain 2011).
Considering all the above-mentioned arguments, this study pursued three main
objectives. The first objective of this study was to develop a tentative hypothesised
model of language identity in Iran. As the second objective of this study, a
questionnaire was developed and validated to test the hypothesised model. Finally, in
the last phase the data gathered through this questionnaire were fed into the model
to see to what extent the model fit the data.
Downloaded by [Tulane University] at 04:33 04 September 2014

Multilingualism, multiculturalism and identities in Iran

Iran is a country in the Middle East with diverse languages, cultures and ethnicities.
Persian is the national and official language in Iran, which is classified as one of the
old languages descending from the Indo-European languages also labelled as an
Indo-Iranian language. Persian is spoken as the national language not only in Iran
but also in Afghanistan and Tajikistan where it is known as Farsi (Iran), Dari
(Afghanistan) and Tajik (Tajikistan) (Beeman 2010). In spite of certain linguistic
differences and researchers’ contentions about these varieties, this language is still
known as Persian. However, there are some differences between Persian spoken in
Iran, Afghanistan and Tajikistan including differences in lexicon, pronunciation,
grammar and also writing system. As an example, Persian in Iran and Afghanistan is
written in Arabic script but in Tajikistan it is written in Cyrillic script.
Persian can be historically divided into three types including Old Persian, Middle
Persian and Modern Persian. It is currently the mother tongue for almost 60% of the
whole population in Iran, and the rest of the Iranians speak some other languages
and distinct dialects including Azari (Turkish), Kurdish, Arabic, Lori, Gilaki and
Balochi among many others (see Payne and Mahmoodi-Bakhtiari 2009; Windfuhr
2009). This variety of languages in Iran makes it a multilingual country with several
types of ethnicities. The dominant ethnicities in Iran include Persians, Azaris, Kurds,
Lors, Arabs, Baloch and Turkmen inter alia that make Iran a multiethnic and
multicultural country.
Another important factor in the Iranian identity is related to the significance of
language and religion. Persian language along with Islam has historically been a
salient factor in Iranian identity. According to Boroujerdi (1998), there are two
opposing standpoints regarding Iranian identity: Iranian identity based on the
religious view dominant in the country and Iranian identity as propagated by the
secular intellectuals based on language or more clearly ethno-linguistic heritage as
the main indicator of Iranian identity. From the first perspective Islamic Shia
determines Iranian identity, and from the second perspective Persian language
determines Iranian identity. In support of the second perspective, Yarshater (1993)
contends that ‘it is only by loving, learning, teaching and above all enriching this
language (Persian) that the Persian identity may continue to survive’ (142).
In brief, Iran is a country with diverse languages (multilingualism), ethnicities
and cultures (multiculturalism), which makes it a good site for sociolinguistic
research. Although some previous studies have discussed the sociolinguistic issues of
 692 M. Khatib and S. Rezaei

Persian (Modarresi 2001), Kurdish (Hassanpour, Sheyholislami, and Skutnabb-

Kangas 2012) and Azari (Bani-Shoraka 2009) in Iran, more research is needed for a
fuller description of the sociology of languages and identities in Iran.

The study
Researching identity in applied linguistics is achieved through a number of
methodological tools including interviews, ethnographic observation and question-
naires inter alia (Rezaei 2012). Although interview and ethnography are two valuable
research tools, they are usually time consuming and costly for administration and
scoring. The potential practical problems inherent in interviewing and ethnographic
observations make the use of validated questionnaires a viable solution.
Although some researchers have used questionnaires as a way to collect their data
in identity and attitudinal studies (e.g. Shaaban and Ghaith 2003), they have mainly
Downloaded by [Tulane University] at 04:33 04 September 2014

employed open-ended questionnaires with little information on their validation and

reliability index. On the other hand, so many researchers have remained the royal
supporters of solely qualitative approaches to identity research and have shied away
from quantitative or mixed-methods studies. Now that language studies are replete
with complex constructs translated into quantifiable constructs and measures like
language anxiety, language competence and language motivation, identity likewise
can be researched with quantitative or more mixed-methods research tools. In other
words, neighbouring disciplines like sociology, psychology and anthropology have
done a lot to mix both qualitative and quantitative measures for exploring identity.
Examples include measures of ego identity (Balistreri, Busch-Rossnagel, and
Geisinger 1995), ethnic identity (Phinney 1992) and gay identity (Brady and Busse
1994). What remains to be added to this list is a good measure of language identity.
Tentative and validated models of identity have also been proposed for different
contexts including Israel (e.g. Golan-Cook and Olshtain 2011); however, no
validated model is proposed for language identity in Iran. Therefore, in the next
sections the steps to develop a model and questionnaire of language identity for
Iranian context will be presented.

A tentative model of language identity in Iran

Developing a model followed by constructing a reliable and valid questionnaire can
be very helpful for doing large-scale surveys. However, the contextual variations
should also be taken into account when developing such a model or questionnaire.
Hence, language identity can be defined with different components depending on the
linguistic, sociological, anthropological and historical context of the language under
investigation. Accordingly, the current researchers attempted to develop a model
for language identity in Iran to encompass its relevant components. In order to
accomplish this purpose, the researchers went through a number of rigorous and
iterative steps.
The initial step was to review the previous works and relevant theories to
establish the theoretical framework for this study. One of the theories informing this
study was the theory of bilingualism and bilingual education (e.g. Baker 2011;
Dewaele, Housen, and Wei 2003) as Iranians participating in this study knew at least
one language (Azari, Kurdish, Arabic, or English) besides Persian. The theories and
studies on language and identity (e.g. Norton 2000) also made the cornerstone of this
 Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 693

research as the whole research focused on identity and its relation with language.
Globalisation and language teaching and learning issues (e.g. Block and Cameron
2002; Coupland 2010) were also utilised as language identity is predominantly
affected by globalisation. Attitude is the main source to identity and as Dyer (2007)
puts it, part of individual’s identity is formed through accent and phonology. In other
words, language identity can be partially recognised through the accent, dialect or
pronunciation that an individual adopts. Hence, part of the model provided here is
devoted to pronunciation attitudes based on the works in the literature (e.g. Garrett
2010; Jenkins 2007). Besides, sociolinguistics of identity (e.g. Omoniyi and White
2006) and sociology of language (e.g. Bourdieu 1991; Giles and Clair 1979; Spolsky
2011) were informative to develop the model in this study because this study falls
within the sociolinguistic domain of language studies and how language is a
prevailing social factor in identity formation.
Iranians consider Persian language as one of the main pillars of national identity
Downloaded by [Tulane University] at 04:33 04 September 2014

in Iran. Hence, theories and works on language and national identity (e.g. Joseph
2004; Simpson 2007) were also useful. In addition, recent studies show that English
language learners have started to adopt their local English types as legitimised
forms of English and hence the works on World Englishes and postcolonialism
(Brutt-Griffler 2002; Pennycook 1998) helped in composing some of the items in the
questionnaire.
One component of the model was related to how people associate their social
status in the society to the language variety they adopt. The degree people associate
their social status to the language (Persian, English, etc.) they speak is affected by the
extent they value the language they use. In addition, language policy issues in the
literature (e.g. Ricento 2006; Shohamy 2006; Spolsky 2003) were also used because in
Iran the dominant language policy is to value Persian language written in Arabic
script. Minority languages or non-official languages such as Azari and Kurdish are
not recognised for instruction purposes at schools and universities in spite of
the large number of people in Iran speaking these languages. Finally, some local
works in Iran about Persian language and identity were helpful in shaping the model
(e.g. Meskoob 1992).
After reviewing the above-mentioned literature, a number of components were
specified to encapsulate language identity in Iran. In order to confirm the representa-
tiveness, appropriateness and accuracy of these components, a cadre of experts on
linguistics, sociolinguistics and sociology in Iran and abroad were consulted. The
interviews with these experts were held both in Persian and English and took between
30 to 60 minutes. The content of the interviews pivoted on the components of language
identity in Iran. The interviewees were first asked what they constituted as language
identity and the components they mentioned were written down. At the end of the
interviews, the components they proposed were compared with the ones we had
selected a priori. In some interviews at the end of the interview sessions, the priori
selected components were shown to the interviewees to reflect on. This gave them
food for thought to decide about what they had articulated and thereby helped them
give more constructive comments. After all these substantive discussions, the
components were respecified and reconfigured with some minor changes in the
labels of the components and accordingly one new component was also added.
Having reviewed the literature on language and identity, we drafted out six main
components for language identity in Iran including attachment to the Persian
language, pronunciation attitude, language and social status, L1 use/exposure in the
 694 M. Khatib and S. Rezaei

society, language knowledge and finally script/alphabet. Attachment to the Persian

language can show how far Iranians love their own language, that is, the more they
love their language, the higher the Persian language identity. In addition, part of
language identity is related to the attitudes people have towards the pronunciation of
their own language. This component was included in the model because it was aimed
to see how far individual Iranian English language learners would like to adopt
English pronunciation patterns when speaking Persian and if they favour Persian
sounds and pronunciation patterns. Some Iranian English language learners adopt
English pronunciation even when speaking Persian, which shows how they have been
affected by English.
Language and social status was the other component that showed how Iranians
associate their social status to the language they converse in. Some people believe
that English language can give individuals higher social status. Hence, the social
status and language became part of the language identity model. L1 use and
Downloaded by [Tulane University] at 04:33 04 September 2014

exposure in the society was another component that was related to the vitality of
Persian language in the society and if Persian is used by the English language
learners in the social context in Iran. Some English language learners in Iran become
so mesmerised and attached to English language that they use English in their face-
to-face or online daily conversations and communications. Language knowledge was
also important because part of Iranians’ (language) identity is manifested in their
Persian language and literature. In other words, poetry and literary texts have been
very influential in Iranians’ identity. Finally, script and alphabet were included in the
model because Iranians have been scribing in Arabic alphabet from the time Arabs
invaded Persia in the seventh century. Since then Arabic script is used for writing;
however, in the twentieth century a group of Iranian intellectuals proposed Latin to
be used as the writing alphabet in Iran, which raised certain concerns in Iran and this
proposal was finally rejected. Nowadays, many Iranians use Latinised Persian
(Penglish) in their online communication or in their text messaging. There seems to
be a strong proclivity in Iranian younger generation to write Persian in Latin
alphabets. That is why script/alphabet was also included in the model to show how
far Iranians prefer Latin or Arabic for their writing system. Table 1 below shows the
definition for each of the identified components of language identity in Iran.

Instrument development and validation

The review of existing instruments and scales revealed that the ready-made
instruments were not viable for the purpose of this study. As a result, the researchers
decided to develop a questionnaire serving the objectives of this study to test the
model of language identity hypothesised in the previous phase. As Dörnyei (2010)
puts it, ‘developing a questionnaire is a stepwise process, and the quality of the final
instrument depends on the cumulative quality of each sub-process’ (111). All the
steps and stages of questionnaire development and validation were done according to
the instructions given in manuals on questionnaire development by Brown (2001)
and Dörnyei (2010).

Respondents
This study happened between July 2011 and August 2012, and the respondents were
English language learners in Iran from different language proficiency levels, ages,
 Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 695

Table 1. The hypothesised model with its components and definitions.

Component Definition

1 Attachment to the Persian This component refers to how people in Iran think and feel
language about their language in comparison to English language as the
main foreign language.
2 Pronunciation attitude This component refers to Iranians’ attitudes towards their
pronunciation patterns in Persian and English and which
pronunciation they perceive as desirable.
3 Language and social status This component shows how individuals associate their social
status with the language in which they speak. In other words,
are they proud of their own language or do they associate
their low or high social status to the language they speak?
4 L1 use/exposure in the It refers to the extent Iranians use Persian in their daily life in
society comparison to other competing languages, in this case
English.
Downloaded by [Tulane University] at 04:33 04 September 2014

5 Language knowledge It refers to how much information Iranians have about their
own language, its history and literature.
6 Script/alphabet It refers to how Iranians feel about the alphabet and writing
system in their language.

genders and educational backgrounds. The respondents to the questionnaire

included 36 respondents for the initial piloting, 134 for the reliability, 193 for the
exploratory factory analysis and finally 482 for the confirmatory factor analysis.
A panel of five experts and nonexperts also commented on the wording of the items,
content and construct of the questionnaire developed. The expert members of this
panel were also consulted for the components of the model hypothesised and tested.

Questionnaire development
In order to develop a reliable and valid questionnaire, the researchers went through
the following steps.

Step One: item accumulation and item generation

For any instrument development, the first and foremost step is to review the related
literature. This step carries two purposes: (1) to review the existing instruments and
(2) to establish a good theoretical framework for the instrument. In this study, these
two objectives were already met for developing the model. Hence, the researchers
went directly to generate a pool of items based on the hypothesised model. In order
to develop the items, the researchers applied content sampling and multi-item scales.
To have a representative sample of the content to be included in the questionnaire,
the researchers also reviewed a dozen questionnaires in the literature.
In this step, several items were generated because they could better measure or
tap the target domain under investigation and also because the researchers already
knew some items would be eliminated in the pilot study stage. To generate the items,
the researchers did their best to generate simple and short items using natural
language away from any loaded and ambiguous words. In addition, the researchers
tried to avoid double-barrelled questions, that is, asking two or more questions in a
single item. Care was also taken to not make the questionnaire too long. Hence after
item generation, some of the overlapping items were removed. In order to generate
 696 M. Khatib and S. Rezaei

the items for the questionnaire, not only did the researchers check the related
questionnaires already developed by others, but also asked a number of figures in the
field working on language identity to provide some good items for the questionnaire
(expert opinion).
In addition, in developing the items the researchers tried to include the same
number of positively and negatively worded items. In other words, some weak
questionnaires might be developed in a way that most of the responses fall on either
the negative or the positive side of the rating scale (e.g. strongly agree). In this
questionnaire, the researchers avoided this bias and instead provided a balanced
number of positively and negatively worded items. However, for later analyses these
items went through reverse coding.

Step Two: designing the rating scales

Downloaded by [Tulane University] at 04:33 04 September 2014

The rating scale utilised in the current study was based on Likert scale as the most
popular and widely used one named after its inventor, Rensis Likert. The researchers
employed six options including strongly agree, agree, slightly agree, slightly disagree,
disagree and strongly disagree. It should be mentioned here that the researchers initially
opted for five-option type including: strongly agree, agree, no idea (undecided),
disagree and strongly disagree. However, after reviewing the literature on question-
naire development (e.g. Dörnyei 2010), the researchers came to know that Iranians are
generally conservative in their responses
in spite of anonymity
and might merely
choose ‘no idea: undecided’ in some seemingly sensitive items. As a result, six-option
type was selected so that the respondents could not hedge. Another reason for doing so
was making the data result in normal distribution. Respondents showed their degree
of agreement/disagreement to each statement on a six-point Likert-type scale. To score
the items, ‘strongly agree’ received six points, ‘agree’ five points, ‘slightly agree’ four
points and so on. Scoring was reversed for the negatively worded items.

Step Three: designing the personal information part

The personal demographic information in this questionnaire included information
about gender, age, pronunciation attitude, language proficiency level, length of study,
education level, location (city and province), ethnicity, first language and length of
stay abroad. Though most researchers put personal information at the beginning of
the questionnaire, this might affect the respondents’ responses and be considered as
somehow off-putting for some respondents. However, after they have answered the
items, they might more comfortably respond. That is why the personal information
section was put at the end of the questionnaire. This part of the questionnaire was
designed for a later study on exploring language identity in Iran and its relation with
their demographic information.

Step Four: item checking with experts

After the items were generated in English in the previous steps, the researchers
recruited a panel of five experts and nonexperts to check its intelligibility and
accuracy. Nonexperts were included because their ideas would be helpful to remove
unnecessary jargon and loaded words from the questionnaire. Since the final
respondents to the questionnaire were nonexperts too, the feedback from the
 Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 697

nonexperts was as valuable as the one from the experts. Content representativeness
and bias were simultaneously investigated. This panel of experts included profes-
sionals in the field of applied linguistics, sociolinguistics, sociology, Iranian studies
and survey design and statistics.
The panel of experts were requested to rate the items based on a Likert-type scale
from one to four. In this scale, one designated ‘Not important to be included in the
survey’, two was ‘Somehow important to be included’, three ‘Important to be included’
and finally four meant ‘Extremely important to be included in the survey’. They were
additionally asked to pen in a final decision on the item by selecting either ‘omit’ or
‘keep’ the item as the final decision on each item.
The results of the responses obtained from this step reduced the items from 40 to
26 items. Subsequently, 14 items were discarded due to a number of reasons
mentioned by the panel including the redundancy, ambiguity, length and irrelevance
of the items. The criteria to keep an item or omit it from the questionnaire were based
Downloaded by [Tulane University] at 04:33 04 September 2014

on the panel of experts’ opinions. If the majority chose ‘Important’ or ‘Extremely

important to keep the item’, the item was subsequently kept. If the majority
demanded the item to be omitted or found the item ‘Not important or somehow
important to be included’, the item was deleted. As a general rule in this study, items
receiving more than 70% of acceptability were kept for the next step.

Step Five: item translation and revision

After the revisions and modification, the researchers translated the items into Persian
so that the future respondents who were to be from different language proficiency
levels would be able to complete the questionnaire. Initially the researchers intended
to administer the questionnaire in English but due to the inclusion of English
language learners from low-proficiency levels, the questionnaire was translated to be
easier to complete. After the translation was done, items were checked for possible
ambiguities. A PhD candidate of Persian literature who was also the editor of
some literary journals and magazines was asked to edit the Persian version of the
questionnaire and make it standard Persian. Although the questionnaire was
translated into Persian for the sake of ease for the participants, both English and
Persian questionnaires were tested for their reliability and validity. Back translation
was also applied to make sure about the transfer effect from English to Persian.

Step Six: initial piloting and item analysis

Before moving further ahead, the researchers took the following points into
consideration.
Regarding the length of the questionnaire, the researchers did their best to be short
but not to the point of eliminating the central points. This goal was achieved by having
the questionnaire take less than 20 minutes to complete. If a questionnaire takes more
than that to fill out, it might make the respondents reluctant to cooperate fully.
The questionnaire respondents were informed that the information elicited would
be kept anonymous so that they would feel relaxed to answer to the potentially
sensitive items in the questionnaire. Moreover, the researchers tried to put the more
sensitive items to the end of the questionnaire so that they would not discourage the
respondents to respond to the items.
 698 M. Khatib and S. Rezaei

The title of the questionnaire, that is, language identity questionnaire, was
removed during the administration because it might have affected the participants’
responses.
In developing the items, the researchers were also careful not to make double-
negative items because they would sometimes make the items confusing.
Age, education, language proficiency level, etc. were initially generated as open-
ended in this questionnaire. However, they were later turned into pre-determined
categories to ease later analyses.
After considering all the above points, the questionnaire was administered for an
initial piloting. Up to this point, 26 items were generated. Since this was the initial
pilot study, the questionnaire was administered to 36 students similar to the target
population for which the questionnaire was designed. In order to administer
the questionnaire, the researchers used the traditional method, that is, by hand.
The feedbacks were very helpful in modifying some of the items and discarding one.
Downloaded by [Tulane University] at 04:33 04 September 2014

Hence the remaining questionnaire included 25 items.

Step Seven: reliability index

In order to measure the internal consistency of the questionnaire in this study,
Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient was utilised. In order to make a decision about a
correlation level for an acceptable reliability, several studies were reviewed with
various acceptable benchmarks suggested. Following Dörnyei (2010), the current
study chose below 0.60 as weak and above that as an acceptable measure for the
reliability index of the questionnaire. The questionnaire consisted of 25 items and
was administered to 134 Iranian English language learners. The results for the
Cronbach’s Alpha showed that the internal consistency of the whole questionnaire
was 0.73 and for the six subscales (i.e. the six components of language identity) in the
questionnaire, it was estimated to be 0.62, 0.65, 0.70, 0.72, 0.71 and 0.68, respectively.
The results of Cronbach’s Alpha indicated that five of the items reduced the
reliability of the whole questionnaire dramatically and hence were excluded from the
questionnaire. Other items that seemed to reduce the reliability were intentionally
kept intact because the researchers believed those items were important and an
acceptable level of reliability was already met. It should also be mentioned that the
response rate was 97%, and the main reason for this high response rate was the
presence and direct observation of one of the researchers in the data collection site.

Step Eight: validation

The validation process of the questionnaire was based on Alderson and Banerjee
(1996) and Converse and Presser (1986). The main types of validity for questionnaire
validation investigated in the current study were face validity, content validity and
construct validity. Response, predictive and concurrent validities were not investi-
gated because they were not applicable in this study.
Not only should a questionnaire be short, but also nice to the eyes. In order to
fulfil this purpose, that is, face validity, the researchers tried to employ a good layout,
font type, margin, colour, etc. Subsequently the face validity of the questionnaire was
met by considering these issues and checking them with the previous validated
questionnaires in the literature.
 Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 699
Downloaded by [Tulane University] at 04:33 04 September 2014

Figure 1. Scree plot.

To establish the content validity of the questionnaire, the questionnaire was given
to a panel of experts, as discussed above, to judge how far the items were repre-
sentative of a language identity questionnaire. Moreover, the experts reflected on the
wording and the interpretation of the items, and also the instructions given there. To
check the content validity, the questionnaire was also given to five English language
learners from the target population to respond to using think-aloud techniques.
After running these two stages for checking the content validity, some changes were
implemented in the items resulting in rewording of some items. All these changes,
that is, face and content validity, were made prior to the reliability phase. In other
words, content validity was done before estimating the reliability.
After all these steps, the researchers came up with 20 items tapping the six
components of language identity in Iran. Table 2 below shows the six components in
the questionnaire,1 their related items and their reliability indices.
In order to establish the construct validity, two procedures were employed. At
first the questionnaire was checked for its congruency with the theories in the
literature regarding language and identity as discussed above. This step was done
iteratively by checking the items with the researchers in the literature. Next,
exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses were utilised in two separate
administration occasions to statistically check the validity. Nevertheless, a number
of criteria must be met before running factor analysis.
The first step in factor analysis is to assess the suitability of the data for factor
analysis. In order to determine the suitability of the data for factor analysis, two
criteria must be met; ‘sample size and the strength of association among the variables
(or items)’ (Pallant 2007, 180). Regarding the sample size, there are different views
among researchers, the most conservative of which is the larger the better. In this
study, the criterion was that of five to ten respondents for each item. One hundred
and ninety-three participants who took part in the exploratory factor analysis phase
met this criterion.
The second criterion concerning the suitability of running factor analysis is
related to the inter-correlations among the items in the questionnaire. Bartlett’s test
of sphericity and the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure determine this criterion.
In order for these two options to indicate factorability for the data, Bartlett’s test of
sphericity should be significant, that is, p B0.05 and KMO index that ranges from
 700 M. Khatib and S. Rezaei

Table 2. Questionnaire components, their related items and reliability indices.

Component Related items in the questionnaire Reliability

1 Attachment to (1) I wish all my courses at school/university 0.62

Persian language were taught in English rather than Persian.
(2) I like to attend Persian classes more than
English ones.
(3) I love Persian language and I don’t like
English to take its place.
2 Pronunciation (4) I think speaking English with a Persian 0.65
attitude accent is not bad.
(5) I feel proud of speaking Persian with an
English pronunciation.
(6) I like Persian pronunciation more than
English pronunciation.
3 Language and social (7) I believe a person who can speak English very 0.70
Downloaded by [Tulane University] at 04:33 04 September 2014

status well has a better social status and respect in

4 L1 use/exposure in the
society
5 Language knowledge
6 Script/alphabet
the society.
(8) I believe knowing English shows being
respectful.
(9) When I speak English I feel I am superior to
others.
(10) I speak English a lot in my daily life. 0.72
(11) I use English words a lot when I speak
Persian.
(12) I like to speak Persian rather than English
with foreigners who know Persian.
(13) I like to speak English rather than Persian
with my Iranian friends who know English.
(14) I read English texts more than Persian texts.
(15) I like to know more about the history of 0.71
Persian language rather than that of English
language.
(16) I like to know more about Persian poets and
writers rather than English ones.
(17) I read poetry and stories in Persian a lot.
(18) I send text-messages and e-mails in English. 0.68
(19) I like Persian alphabets more than English
ones.
(20) I liked we wrote Persian in Latin alphabets.

0 to 1 should not be below 0.6, otherwise the data will not be considered appropriate
for running factor analysis. For the current study as shown in Table 3, the KMO and
Bartlett’s test result showed that KMO measure was above 0.60 (KMO 0.76) and
also the Bartlett’s test of sphericity was significant (p 0.00). These two values
assume that there are some significant factors to be extracted from the data.

Table 3. KMO and Bartlett’s test results.

KMO and Bartlett’s test

KMO measure of sampling adequacy 0.76

Bartlett’s test of sphericity
Approximately chi-square 754.16
df 190
Significance 0.00
 Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 701

After determining the factorability of the data, factor analysis was run based on
principle components analysis (PCA). In order to decide about the number of factors
to be retained, the Kaiser’s criterion according to which only the eigenvalues of
1.0 and more were selected. For the current questionnaire, the scree plot in Figure 1
indicates 6 factors above eigenvalue 1. The six factors accounted for 77.24% of the
total variance (usually anything over 60% is good in this case). These six factors
accounted for 28.96%, 18.93%, 9.31%, 8.64%, 6.40% and 5.28% of the total variance,
respectively.
Variable communalities were greater than 0.30 for all the items. Communality
values for this questionnaire ranged from 0.53 to 0.74. The factor correlations for the
questionnaire were all at acceptable levels with the highest correlation between factor
1 and factor 4 (r 0.71), followed by 1 and 2 (r 0.70), 2 and 3 (r 0.68), 3
and 4 (r 0.67), 1 and 6 (r 0.65), 4 and 5(r 0.62), 1 and 3 (r 0.55), 2 and
5 (r 0.55), 4 and 6 (r 0.53), 3 and 6 (r 0.50), 2 and 6 (r 0.48), 1 and
Downloaded by [Tulane University] at 04:33 04 September 2014

5 (r 0.45), 2 and 4 (r 0.45), 3 and 5 (r 0.44), 5 and 6 (r 0.44).

The results of factor analysis based on PCA, as shown in Table 4, indicates the
six factors and how clean they are loaded and the degree of their loadings. Some
cross-loadings were also observed. Some of these cross-loadings were neglected
because they were usually loaded way higher on one factor than the other.
Nonetheless, four cross-loadings were very close on two separate factors. For
instance, items 10 to 14 were loaded on both factors 1 and 4. This occurred because
of the close relations between the two factors. Items 10
14 can show both the
learners’ attachment to the Persian language and also their exposure to the language
and the extent they use Persian. In other words, it can be partially justified by
considering that the more individuals use Persian, the more attached they are
towards it. However, as shown in Table 4 the loadings are still higher on factor 4 than
factor 1.
After checking the factor loadings, items that do not load highly on any of the
factors are to be eliminated from the questionnaire. In this phase of questionnaire
administration, all the items were acceptably loaded on the six factors.

Confirmatory factor analysis and testing the model fitness

After doing exploratory factor analysis, a confirmatory factor analysis was run to
check if the questionnaire data fit the model hypothesised at the outset of the
study. In other words, the questionnaire was once again administered to 482
language learners. The questionnaire for this phase of research was uploaded on
SurveyMonkey (www.surveymonkey.com) and the participants filled out the
questionnaire online.
Structural equation modelling (SEM), which is a multivariate analysis technique
for exploring causality in models and the causal relations among variables, was run.
SEM is rooted in the positivist epistemological belief that was cobbled together out
of regression analysis, path analysis and confirmatory factor analysis. SEM is used as
a confirmatory technique to test models that are conceptually derived a priori or test
if a theory fits the data. SEM shows the relationship between latent variables, that is,
the components of language identity in this study, and the observable variables, that
is, the items in the questionnaire generated for each of the components in language
identity construct.
 702 M. Khatib and S. Rezaei

Table 4. Factor loading based on PCA.

Componenta

1 2 3 4 5 6

v1 0.655
v2 0.623
v3 0.879
v4 0.567
v5 0.675
v6 0.723
v7 0.574
v8 0.562
v9 0.598
v10 0.553 0.565
v11 0.617 0.656
Downloaded by [Tulane University] at 04:33 04 September 2014

v12 0.682 0.687

v13 0.603 0.623
v14 0.643 0.662
v15 0.752
v16 0.684
v17 0.644
v18 0.589
v19 0.763
v20 0.739
Note: Extraction method: PCA.
a
Six components extracted.

In order to test the hypothesised model, AMOS 21 was run and maximum
likelihood method was used to estimate the parameters. The participants who took
part in this part of the study were 482 English language learners who ranged in age
from 15 to 35 years with a mean age of 22 years. They were from different parts of
the country possessing different demographic characteristics. The researchers
deliberately did so to test the model for the whole country rather than limiting it
to the capital city. Table 5 shows the descriptive statistics (e.g. age, gender, ethnicity
and language proficiency level) for the participants in this phase of study. As can be
seen in the data presented in Table 5, some of the respondents did not fill out the
parts about their demographic information (missing data) and subsequently 468
participants were included for SEM. The demographic information gathered here
was intended to be included as variables in the model. Nevertheless, these variables
were excluded from the model to avoid complexity. For models
such as the one in
this study
at their nascent stages, it is highly suggested not to make them
convoluted. However, future studies2 can utilise these variables as latent and hence
discover the relations among all these variables.
In order to report the model fitness, there are three common absolute fit indices
including:
- x2 according to which nonsignificant x2 (p 0.05) indicates good fit;
- Root Mean Squared Error of Approximation (RMSEA); acceptable fit B0.10
and good fit B0.05; hence the smaller the RMSEA, the better and fitter the
model is; and
- Goodness of Fit (GFI) 0.90 is considered as good fit.
Downloaded by [Tulane University] at 04:33 04 September 2014

Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development

Table 5. Demographic information of the participants for the confirmatory factor analysis phase.

Age Gender Ethnicity Language proficiency

11
15 16
20 21
25 25 Total Male Female Total Fars Azari Kurd Arab Lor Other Total Basic Elementary Pre-inter Inter High Inter Advanced Total

46 56 128 249 479 211 268 480 298 58 41 40 33 5 475 22 46 52 67 92 200 479
9.6% 11.7% 26.7% 52%
43.9% 55.8%
62.7% 12.2% 8.6% 8.4% 6.9% 1%
4.5% 9.6% 10.8% 13.9% 19.2% 41.7%

703
 704 M. Khatib and S. Rezaei

In this study, absolute fit indices were taken into account because there was no
previous model to test this model against. The initial results of SEM showed poor
fitness for the model. The reasons for this lack of fitness were related to the
complexity of the model, which included not only the six factors but also some
demographic information. Hence, some changes were made in the model to make it
fit the data. These changes included removing some of the restrictions in the model
including the demographic information and instead focusing on the main factors
proposed a priori. In addition, one of the items (item 12) was removed because it
showed low factor loadings. Hence, the model was revised and SEM was once again
run. The output of the second SEM showed x2 4.42, df 155, p 0.02, which
shows a significant value for Chi-square. Since Chi-square value is dependent on
sample size and is usually significant for 400 samples and more, x2/df is used as a
solution, which is 4.42/155  0.02 and is considered as an acceptable degree (see
Table 6). The results of the second SEM also indicated GFI 0.974 and RMSEA 
Downloaded by [Tulane University] at 04:33 04 September 2014

0.00, which were also acceptable. Table 6 shows the indices for SEM and shows a
desirable level of fitness based on the output from AMOS 21. Hence, all the indices
are at an acceptable level and the model seems to be a fit model. In other words, the
data gathered in this study seem to support this model.
Figure 2 shows the schematic representation of the recursive model of language
identity in Iran. Path coefficients are also put on the pathways from each latent
variable to other latent or observable variables to show the strength of relation or
correlation among the variables.

Discussion and conclusion

The main goal of this study was to develop a model and test its fitness through a
validated questionnaire. Hence, a model was initially hypothesised and later tested
through a valid questionnaire. The results of this study showed that though the
model had been the first one developed for the Iranian context, it enjoyed a
reasonable degree of reliability and validity as confirmed by the statistical indices
from SEM. The questionnaire also displayed a respectable degree of reliability and
validity for future use in the Iranian context. Both the model and the questionnaire
developed and validated in this study can have many uses and applications for future
researchers.
First of all, although both the model and the questionnaire are for the Iranian
context, judicious changes can make them useful for other contexts too. Researchers
from other linguistic contexts can also use the steps in this study to develop and
validate similar models and questionnaires for other linguistic contexts. However,
contextual variances should be considered and subsequently the model and the
questionnaire should be rechecked for their reliability and validity. In spite of
the statistical confirmation for the reliability and validity of the model and the

Table 6. Selected fit measures for the final model.

Index Current level Accepted level

x2 4.42 p 0.05
x2/df 0.02 B3
GFI 0.98 0.90
RMSEA 0.00 B 0.05
 Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 705
Downloaded by [Tulane University] at 04:33 04 September 2014

Figure 2. Final model of language identity for English language learners in Iran.
Note: F1, F2, F3, F4, F5 and F6 are the factors identified in EFA.

questionnaire, the researchers hereby recommend that more rigorous studies are
required to test this model and probably add more components and subcomponents
to this model as is the case with other models in language studies (e.g. communicative
competence model). In other words, although the data gathered in this study through
a reliable and valid questionnaire seem to have fit the model, this should not make
this model vaccinated for any other deficiencies. The researchers believe that other
replication studies, collecting data from different groups of Iranians are required to
reduce confounding variables and subsequently enhance the reliability and validity of
this model.
 706 M. Khatib and S. Rezaei

Moreover, developing such a model would also be a move towards quantitative

approaches in identity research where a more tangible picture of identity is obtained.
In other words, the questionnaire developed in this study carries certain advantages
over other methodological tools for identity research. One of the main benefits of
developing such a questionnaire is its speed of data collection and objective scoring.
In addition, the data can be much more easily extrapolated. This ques-
tionnaire is intended to be used to further explore language identity in Iran and
how demographic information can affect language learners’ identity in Iran. One last
important note to be borne in mind is that this questionnaire is not recommended to
be used as the sole data collection instrument in research studies but should be
accompanied by interviewing in order to complement the shortcomings in the data
gathered through questionnaires.
Downloaded by [Tulane University] at 04:33 04 September 2014

Acknowledgements
Acknowledgements are to the Iranian Ministry of Science, Research, and Technology that
funded and supported this research. We would also like to thank professor Ingrid Piller at
Macquarie University for her support, critical insights and intellectual guidance. Special
thanks are also extended to Dariush Izadi for his help and encouragement during this project.

Notes
1. The complete version of the questionnaire in both English and Persian is available upon
request.
2. This study is part of a larger PhD project and the model and the questionnaire developed
here are utilised in a follow-up nation-wide survey to study the language identity level of
Iranian English language learners from different age groups, genders and language
proficiency levels.

References
Alderson, C. J., and Banerjee, J. 1996. How Might Impact Study Instruments be Validated?
Unpublished manuscript commissioned by UCLES.
Baker, C. 2011. Foundations of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. 5th ed. Bristol:
Multilingual Matters.
Balistreri, E., N. A. Busch-Rossnagel, and K. F. Geisinger. 1995. ‘‘Development and
Preliminary Validation of the Ego Identity Process Questionnaire.’’ Journal of Adolescence
18 (2): 179
192. doi:10.1006/jado.1995.1012.
Bani-Shoraka, H. 2009. ‘‘Cross-Generational Bilingual Strategies among Azerbaijanis in
Tehran.’’ International Journal of the Sociology of Language 198: 105
127. doi:10.1515/
IJSL.2009.029.
Beeman, W. O. 2010. ‘‘Sociolinguistics in the Iranian World.’’ In The Routledge Handbook of
Sociolinguistics in the World, edited by M. J. Ball, 139
148. London: Routledge.
Block, D. 2007. Second Language Identities. London: Continuum.
Block, D., and D. Cameron, eds. 2002. Globalization and Language Teaching. London:
Routledge.
Boroujerdi, M. 1998. ‘‘Contesting Nationalist Constructions of Iranian Identity.’’ Critique 12:
43
55. doi:10.1080/10669929808720120.
Bourdieu, P. 1991. Language and Symbolic Power. Translated by G. Raymond and
M. Adamson and edited by J. B. Thompson. Cambridge: Polity Press. (original work
published in 1982)
Brady, S., and W. J. Busse. 1994. ‘‘The Gay Identity Questionnaire.’’ Journal of Homosexuality
26 (4): 1
22. doi:10.1300/J082v26n04_01.
 Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 707

Brown, J. D. 2001. Using Surveys in Language Programs. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.
Brutt-Griffler, J. 2002. World English: A study of Its Development. Clevedon: Multilingual
Matters.
Converse, J. M., and Presser, S. 1986. Survey Questions: Handcrafting the Standardized
Questionnaire. London: Sage.
Coupland, N., ed. 2010. The Handbook of Language and Globalization. Malden, MA: Wiley-
Blackwell.
Dewaele, J. M., A. Housen, and L. Wei. 2003. Bilingualism: Beyond Basic Principles:
Festschrift in Honour of Hugo Baetens Beardsmore. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Dörnyei, Z. 2010. Questionnaires in Second Language Research: Construction, Administration,
and Processing. 2nd ed. London: Routledge.
Dyer, J. 2007. ‘‘Language and Identity.’’ In The Routledge Companion to Sociolinguistics,
edited by C. Liamas, L. Mullany and P. Stockwell, 101
108. London: Routledge.
Edwards, J. 2009. Language and Identity: An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511809842.
Downloaded by [Tulane University] at 04:33 04 September 2014

Ehala, M. 2012. ‘‘Cultural Values Predicting Acculturation Orientations: Operationalizing a

Quantitative Measure.’’ Journal of Language, Identity, & Education 11 (3): 185
199.
doi:10.1080/15348458.2012.686388.
Garrett, P. 2010. Attitudes to Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/
CBO9780511844713.
Giles, H., and R. N. St. Clair, eds. 1979. Language and Social Psychology. Oxford: Basil
Blackwell.
Golan-Cook, P., and E. Olshtain. 2011. ‘‘A Model of Identity and Language Orientations: The
Case of Immigrant Students from the Former Soviet Union in Israel.’’ Journal of
Multilingual and Multicultural Development 32 (4): 361
376. doi:10.1080/014346
32.2011.579128.
Hassanpour, A., J. Sheyholislami, and T. Skutnabb-Kangas. 2012. ‘‘Introduction Kurdish:
Linguicide, Resistance and Hope.’’ International Journal of the Sociology of Language 217:
1
18. doi:10.1515/ijsl-2012-0047.
Jenkins, J. 2007. English as Lingua Franca: Attitude and Identity. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Joseph, J. 2004. Language and Identity: National, Ethnic, Religious. Basingstoke: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Liamas, C., and D. Watt. 2010. Language and Identities. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University
Press.
Meskoob, S. 1992. Iranian Nationality and the Persian Language. Washington, DC: Mage
Publishers.
Modarresi, Y. 2001. ‘‘Aspects of Sociolinguistics in Iran.’’ International Journal of the
Sociology of Language 148: 1
3. doi:10.1515/ijsl.2001.012.
Norton, B. 2000. Identity and Language Learning: Gender, Ethnicity, and Educational Change.
Harlow: Pearson Education.
Omoniyi, T, and G. White, eds. 2006. The Sociolinguistics of Identity. London: Continuum.
Pallant, J. 2007. SPSS Survival Manual: A Step-by-step Guide to Data Analysis Using SPSS for
Windows. 3rd ed. McGraw Hill: Open University Press.
Payne, J. R., and B. Mahmoodi-Bakhtiari. 2009. ‘‘Iranian Languages.’’ In The World’s Major
Languages, 2nd ed., edited by B. Comrie, 437
444. London: Routledge.
Pennycook, A. 1998. English and the Discourses of Colonialism. London: Routledge.
Phinney, J. S. 1992. ‘‘The Multi Group Ethnic Identity Measure: A New Scale for Use with
Diverse Groups.’’ Journal of Adolescent Research 7 (2): 156
176. doi:10.1177/0743
55489272003.
Polat, N., and L. J. Mahalingappa. 2010. ‘‘Gender Differences in Identity and Acculturation
Patterns and L2 Accent Attainment.’’ Journal of Language, Identity, and Education 9 (1):
17
35. doi:10.1080/15348450903476832.
Rezaei, S. 2012. ‘‘Researching Identity in Applied Linguistics.’’ Journal of Language, Culture
and Society 35: 45
51. http://www.aaref.com.au/en/publications/journal/journal-articles/
issue-35-2012/.
 708 M. Khatib and S. Rezaei

Ricento, T. 2005. ‘‘Considerations of Identity in L2 Learning.’’ In Handbook of Research in

Second Language Teaching and Learning, edited by E. Hinkel, 895
911. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Ricento, T., ed. 2006. An Introduction to Language Policy: Theory and Method. London:
Blackwell.
Shaaban, K., and G. Ghaith. 2003. ‘‘Effect of Religion, First Foreign Language, and Gender
on the Perception of the Utility of Language.’’ Journal of Language, Identity, and
Education 2 (1): 53
77. doi:10.1207/S15327701JLIE0201_3.
Shohamy, E. 2006. Language Policy: Hidden Agendas and New Approaches. London:
Routledge.
Simpson, A. 2007. Language and National Identity in Asia. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Spolsky, B. 2003. Language Policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/
CBO9780511615245.
Spolsky, B. 2011. ‘‘Ferguson and Fishman: Sociolinguistics and the Sociology of Language.’’
In The Sage Handbook of Sociolinguistics, edited by R. Wodak, B. Johnstone and
P. E. Kerswill, 11
23. London: Sage.
Downloaded by [Tulane University] at 04:33 04 September 2014

Van Zomeren, M., T. Postmes, and R. Spears. 2008. ‘‘Toward an Integrative Social Identity
Model of Collective action: A Quantitative Research Synthesis of Three Socio-
psychological Perspectives.’’ Psychological Bulletin 134 (4): 504
535. doi:10.1037/0033-
2909.134.4.504.
Windfuhr, G. L. 2009. ‘‘Persian.’’ In The World’s Major Languages, 2nd ed., edited by
B. Comrie, 445
459. London: Routledge.
Yarshater, E. 1993. ‘‘Persian Identity in Historical Perspective.’’ Iranian Studies 26 (1
2):
141
42. doi:10.1080/00210869308701791.