Research Methods

Research methods and issues in Hijazi historical sociolinguistics

LING 5370M: Research Methods (22, March, 2012)

Research Methods Introduction Any discussion on research methodology issues experienced when researching the relationship between Hijazi language and society, or the various functions of Hijazi dialect in society, should being with some attempt to define research, society and language. Research may be defined as is a structured enquiry that utilizes acceptable scientific methodology to solve problems and create new knowledge that is generally applicable (Kerlinger and Lee 15). Although we engage in such processes in our daily life, the difference between our casual day-to-day generalization and the conclusions usually recognized as scientific method lies in the degree of formality, rigorousness, verifiability and general validity of the latter. When an individual says that they are undertaking a research study to find answers to a particular question they generally mean that the research process being undertaken is within a framework of a set of philosophies and approaches which employ the use of procedures, methods and techniques that have been tested for their validity and reliability and are designed to be unbiased and objective. Philosophies in the above regard refer to approaches which can be categorized in to qualitative, quantitative and the academic discipline which all researchers are trained in. Validity here means that the correct measures have been used to find answers to a question. Reliability on the other hand refers to the quality of a measurement procedure that provides repeatability and accuracy while unbiased and objective means that the researcher has taken each step in an impartial manner and drawn each conclusion to the best of their ability and without introducing their own

Research Methods vested interest. Adherence to the three above mentioned criteria enables the process to be called research however, the degree to which these criteria are expected to be fulfilled varies from discipline to discipline and so the meaning of research differs from one academic discipline to another. Society which plays a huge role in sociolinguistics can be defined as any group of people who are drawn together for a certain purpose or purposes (Wardhaugh 1). By such a definition society becomes a very comprehensive concept due to the very different societies that must be consider during the sociolinguistic study of Hijazi dialect. In an attempt to equally comprehensively define language we can say that language is what the members of a particular society speak. Since speech in almost any society can taken many different forms, what forms of speech a researcher chooses to in their attempt to describe the language of a particular society can prove to be quite a contentious research method issue experienced when conducting research on Hijazi sociolinguistics. Apart from the above sometimes a society may be pluri-lingual (speakers may use more than one language) signifying that however we may choose to define language, language and society are not independent. Since research areas of applied linguistics have been growing rapidly, there are a variety of old, new and mixed research methods researchers may select from. How a researcher selects the appropriate paradigms, qualitative research or quantitative research, relevant to the research topic is top priority in the beginning stage of their research. If the researcher does not have any pre-requisite knowledge about research methods, it

Research Methods becomes be very difficult for him or her to successfully complete their research. As such it is important for researchers to have some understanding of various sociolinguistic paradigms so as to allow them to have some idea on how to select the relevant methodology. When we consider different approaches to research, we have to make sure that we incorporate either quantitative or qualitative data.

Alternatively a researcher may employ mixed method for collection of quantitative as well as qualitative data. For collection of quantitative data when researching Hijazi historical sociolinguistics, we may choose questionnaires and experimental designs, whereas interviews, case studies, ethnography and diary research may be used for qualitative data collection. In the quantitative form of research data collection, the information collected is presented in numerical form and analyzed by statistical methods with the most commonly used statistical software in applied linguistics and social sciences being SPSS. In contrast, the data in qualitative research is non-numerical and open-ended. For instance, the recordings of an interview are interpreted in qualitative content analysis and by non-statistical method. Meanwhile, mixed method research combines quantitative and qualitative methods for both data collection and data analysis. The application of a questionnaire and then interview in a consecutive manner when conducting research is a simple typical example of mixed method approach. Based on the meaning of numbers, quantitative research seems to be more scientific, objective with less individual variations. Comparatively speaking, the qualitative data collection approach depends more on the

Research Methods researchers subjectivity, training and experience linked with the individual respondents. Whereas the quantitative paradigm offers macro views of overall trends of the world by structured and scientific methods, qualitative research provides micro perspective of daily realties of the world through flexible and sensitive ways. Generally speaking, the scientific method used in quantitative research consists of three basic steps: The first of which is, identifying a problem; second, setting an initial hypothesis and third, collecting and analyzing empirical data for testing the hypothesis with standard

procedure. In contrast, context-individual variations are allowed in natural settings without any hypothesis set before or any fixed method for qualitative research. There are strengths and weakness in both quantitative and qualitative research. As such the data collection method a researcher chooses depends on the research they are conducting. It is left at the researchers discretion as to whether or not they select either one of the research methods or choose to combine both types their research through mixed method approach. For example, if a researcher wanted to test whether or not motivation is a major factor affecting Hijazi learning for students learning it as a second language, choosing a quantitative method to design a questionnaire with a 3-point to 7-point scale for the subject, or selecting the qualitative approach of interviewing the primary students and recording is a decision that is left up to the researcher to determine. As mentioned above the research method alternative involves combining both the questionnaire and the interview for this research by using the mixed research methodology.

Research Methods The criteria used in selecting the research paradigm depend on what the researchers expectations and hypotheses are. After determining which research method, best suites both expectations and hypotheses the next phase involved is applying it to the collection and analysis of data. On occasion researchers some times face trials and errors in application of the research methods and as a result need to make readjustment and modification during the research process. The scientific study of Hijazi dialect or any language for that matter, its uses and the linguistic norms that people observe presents a number of research issues. Such a study must go a long way beyond simply devising schemes for classifying the various bits and pieces of linguistic data observed. Simply devising schemes for classifying data observed would be a rather lacking and quite uninteresting activity sort of like butterfly collecting. A more profound type of theorizing is required in such a research study one that calls for some attempt to arrive at an understanding of the general principles of organization that must exist in both language and the uses of language. It is just such an attempt that led Saussure (1959) to distinguish between language (group knowledge of language) and parole (individual use of language); Bloomfield (1993) in the same regard to stress the importance of constructive distribution (since Kaaf and Xaaf are different words in Hijazi, /k/ and /x/ must be contrastive units in the structure of Hijazi); Pike (1967) to distinguish between emic and etic units and Sapir (1921) and much later Chomsky (1965) to stress the distinction between the surface characteristics of utterances and the deep realities of linguistic form behind these surface characteristics.

Research Methods The major current linguistic concerns with matters such as language universals, that is the essential properties and various typologies of language (see Cromrie, 1989, and Cook and Newson, 1996), the factors that make language learnable by humans but not non-humans (see Pinker, 1994), and the conditions that govern such matters as linguistic change (see Labov, 1994 and McMahon, 1994) are just a few indications that there is not just one way to study or research linguistics even though it is true to say that some linguistics occasionally behave as though their methods or ways are the only way. With what we know about language and society it is hardly an exaggeration to say that the variationist framework has in this day and age come to be recognized as one of the standard methods in sociolinguistic research. Applied Linguistics Research Paradigms 1. Issues of validity Sociolinguistics, whether historical or contemporary, always requires attention to both sides of the coin: language and society. As linguists, we focus on variation and change of linguistic phenomena, but our data needs to be interpreted against the social analyses that have been made by historians, in particular social and cultural historians and historical sociologists. The history of Hijazi has been documented for a considerable amount of time now. However, the extent of documentation varies a great deal depending on the period, the times furthest away from us yielding far less material for study than, say, the last few centuries. The limits of our knowledge of history similarly restrict our ability to reconstruct past societies including the living conditions of families and individuals. The

Research Methods earlier the period under scrutiny, the less we know about its general, social and cultural history. These facts set the limits within which research into historical sociolinguistics can be carried out. Although it may be interesting to observe isolated details about the linguistic usage of the past, the historical sociolinguists aim is rather more ambitious: to uncover sociolinguistic patterns on a more general level. To be able to arrive at generalizations about the issues studied, the validity of the enterprise should be looked at from different angles (Nevalainen & Raumolin 9 -10). The work of historical sociolinguists first and foremost represents empirical research, which is not possible without sufficient data. We could call the need for a broad and systematic database in historical sociolinguistics the requirement of empirical validity. Empirical validity is another research method issue that will have to be evaluated both in general terms and for each period separately. Since the number of documents that has come down to Hijazi historical linguists vary according to the historical period, it is clear that the level of empirical validity of sociolinguistic investigations will also vary in a similar fashion. Much of the research in historical sociolinguistics is generally carried out to investigate the extent to which modern sociolinguistic methods and models can be applied to diachronic studies. As such historical sociolinguistic research involves tracing the relevant social divisions for sociolinguistic analysis. In correlation

sociolinguistics, for instance, the social validity of research is improved by testing a range of speaker variables such as gender, occupation, age and domicile, or by adding migration and social mobility to the conditioning

Research Methods factors. However, in a field involving history the requirement of social validity is closely connected with that of historical validity. This requirement makes researchers turn to social historians and historical sociologists for relevant reconstructions of the societies and periods under study. Most researchers generally believe that all these three types of validity increase when the periods considered come close to our own times. 2. Sociolinguistic paradigms Neither modern nor historical sociolinguistics is of course monolithic. Nevalainen and Raumolin-Brunberg propose three major paradigms in sociolinguistics, i.e., the sociology of language, social dialectology and interactional sociolinguistics, including their objects of study and modes of inquiry (18). Although research on past varieties does not in principle differ from present-day Languages, the methods of acquiring data can not be the same. There is no way of doing fieldwork in the past and as such researchers have to rely on the linguistic material that is available to them. The research method issue that comes up in the above regard when researching Hijazi historical sociolinguistics is that only written data is available from times before the relatively recent invention of taperecording. This means that the mode of preservation of linguistic material restricts the research questions to some extent, excluding, for instance, issues directly involving spoken language. The rest of the dimensions introduced by Nevalainen and Raumolin-Brunberg can find their

applications in historical research, if researchers keep in mind the limits imposed by the varying quantity and quality of data and the historical

Research Methods knowledge available.

3. Gender and culture as variables Sociolinguistic literature has frequently reported that males and females tend to use language differently (e.g., Bergvall et al., 1996; Holmes, 1993, 1995; Holmes & Meyerhoff, 2003; James, 1996; Labov, 1991; Lakoff, 1975; Romaine, 2003; Tannen, 1994). Examining the role of gender in language is another research approach used in sociolinguist that presents a research method issue. Linguistic differences run the gamut from who dominates the conversation to type of vocabulary, function of message, or use of politeness conventions. Some scholars like Aries, 1996; Dindia & Canary, 2006; James & Clarke, 1993; Tannen, 1993 rightly observe that differences in linguistic interaction sometimes have more to do with the relationship between interlocutors (including how long they have known one another and their relative position of status and power) than with gender. Nonetheless, the correlations observed between gender and Language are too strong to ignore, even if some are ultimately traceable to factors such as socialization and circumstance rather than to biology. The role of gender differentiation in language change is one of the more modern sociolinguistic universals (Hudson 195). The research method issue sociolinguistic researchers may experience here are that the historical study of womens language suffers from extensive female illiteracy (OMara 87-137). An illustration of this can be observed from Johanna L. Woods examination of late medieval letter-writing practices by applying Faircloughs critical discourse analysis approach to 15th-century

10

Research Methods letters attributed to Lady Margaret Paston. Her findings present evidence suggesting that Lady Margaret herself must have been the composer of the letters. A similar conclusion is also reached by (Truelove 42 -58) who analyses the 15th-century letters of the Stonor women which similarly indicate letter-writing existed as a verbal rather than a manual skill for these late medieval women. While gender is one relevant focus when researching Hijazi sociolinguistics patterns, culture is another. Culture can be viewed from multiple vantage points: surface manifestations (such as which hand you hold a fork in), behavioral patterns that reflect belief systems (for example, how people bury their dead) or effects of culture on the way we think (e.g., Hall 1976; Nisbett 2003). Cross-cultural studies are, of course, fraught with challenges (Baron 2010; Haddon 2005; Livingstone 2003; Thomas et al. 2005). Most such studies compare countries, though a single nation-state may have multiple cultures (e.g., northern versus southern Iran; Arabs versus Kurds in Iraq). Other challenges are methodological: Subjects in one setting may be familiar with responding to online questionnaires, while those in another may find the survey instrument confusing. A further issue in doing cross-cultural analysis is finding objective depictions of individual cultures and measures of cross-cultural differences. Cultural profiles of individual groups such as Dauns Swedish Mentality acknowledge the sensitivities involved in attempting to portray a national character (155). Hofstedes 1980 work comparing the dimensions of culture (e.g., masculinity versus femininity, small versus large power distance) were an important step towards objective data collection, but is not without

11

Research Methods critics (McSweeney 89 -118). Conclusion Though there are quite a number of research issues that come up while researching Hijazi historical sociolinguistics accepting Comries notion of uniformitarianism as a process, we should be able to identify general sociolinguistic processes in real time (243-257). One of the fundamentals for such generalizations is information from all domains of sociolinguistics macro-level factors such as multilingualism are enacted in micro-level interactional dynamics (Comrie 257). In order to provide a comprehensive research paper on

sociolinguistics and the history of Hijazi a brief survey on what has so far been done in Hijazi historical sociolinguistics, and what remains to be done in the core domains of sociolinguistics needs to be incorporated. Based on the information discussed above, we can conclude that research methodology in sociolinguistics not only needs to be theoretical but also applicable in the real world.

Bibliography Comrie, Bernard. Reconstruction, typology and reality. In Raymond Hickey (Ed.), Motives for Language Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003. Daun, A. Swedish Mentality. State College, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1996. Hudson, Richard A. Sociolinguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996.

12

Research Methods Kerlinger, F. N., & Lee, H. B. Foundations of behavioral research. 4th ed. Holt, NY: Harcourt College Publishers, 2000. Lenker, Ursula. The monasteries of the Benedictine reform and the Winchester School: model cases of social networks in Anglo-Saxon England? European Journal of English Studies 4/3: 2000 McSweeney, B. Hofstedes model of national cultural differences and their consequences: A triumph of faitha failure of analysis. Human Relations, 55 (1), 2002 Nevalainen, Terttu & Helena Raumolin-Brunberg. Sociolinguistics and Language History: Studies Based on the Corpus of Early English Correspondence. Amsterdam & Atlanta, GA: Rodopi, 2002. OMara, V.M. Female scribal activity in late Medieval England: the evidence? Leeds Studies in English NS 27: 1996. Truelove, Alison. Commanding communications: the fifteenth-century letters of the Stonor women. In James Daybell (Ed.), Early Modern Womens Letter Writing, 1450-1700. Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2001.

Wardhaugh, Ronald. An introduction to sociolinguistics. 4th ed. Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishers Inc, 2002.

13