Dissertation methodology

Picture by Frank Bohbot taken from ignant.de


I've started the work for the dissertation I'm going to be doing all year. I'm still in the blissful first stages: swimming around a bit and reading very broadly, all I can get my hands on. In the past two weeks I made good acquaintance with an introduction to sociolinguistics by Mesthrie et al. and now I have moved on to a stack of books on the methods and assumptions of critical discourse analysis (less fun to read, not as many cartoons).

The research question as of yet is: which linguistic analysis methods are useful in the study of language policy and planning?

This is different from what I had thought of initially. At first I wanted to research the impact of language policy and planning (LPP) on internal language change. This was my abstract:

Language planning and policy are a well-researched area of study, but the focus is strongly on the political side of things; how can we ascertain that people have the right to use their language for administrative purposes? In which language should education be provided in multilingual countries? The purely linguistic aspect of language policy has been given less attention. The question this dissertation will attempt to answer is what influence language policy has on internal change of the affected languages, thereby tying in to a bigger question of what factors trigger language change.  

In this dissertation I will first make a classification of types of language policies based on actual policy decisions with regards to language planning and regulation. For each type of policy I will investigate how this might affect internal language development and provide examples from languages affected by these policies. The conclusion will reflect on how these findings relate to the bigger debate on language change in general.

The feedback I got for my first proposal suggested that the chapter "Linguistic Analyses in Language Policies" by Ruth Wodak was a good start for such a dissertation. That chapter didn't mention my proposed idea at all though, but instead seemed to suggest that the only feasible method of linguistic analysis in LPP is critical analysis of texts proposing language policies. Hence I now feel that I ought to try this method also.

To criticise my own idea that you can evaluate language policies by analysing the way they impact on the languages they police; it goes against the principle of sign arbitrariness of De Saussure. The language is not better or worse at signifying meaning before or after a change, no matter whether that change be onset by a policy of some kind. However there are some social aspects - e.g. language attitudes and economic benefit - that do get better or worse as language policy changes.

Another assumption underlying my original proposal that I now don't agree with is that you can draw a clear line between linguistics and sociology or politics. There are more and less "social" approaches to studying language and LPP but they blur into each other and overlap very much. Moreover I implicitly made the assumption that this distinction is meaningful and important. It serves to delineate the number of topics that need to be discussed in a degree on any of the subject fields, but that does not mean that it is a good reflection of reality.

What I feel I have to do now is try out a set of different methods and approaches, preferably on and to the same case study. The choice will focus on the more "linguistic" type of investigation as that would be what I can get the most assistance with within the School of English. The purpose to my mind is to get an idea of the relative benefits and helpfulness of each of the methods and the type of information that can be acquired via them. I still want to look at language change and variation, but I also want to critically analyse texts surrounding my case study, and perhaps I can investigate language attitudes as well.

The book I've started reading at the minute is "Methods of Text and Discourse Analysis" by Titscher et al. I found it hard to read at first but then I employed the tried and trusted "line per paragraph" summarising strategy. Then I got into the flow and stopped summarising as it was a bit tedious, but by now (a few hours later) I have forgotten what the bit that I didn't take notes for said. The main point they have made so far is that all research methods are, implicitly or explicitly, related to particular theoretical assumptions. They then went on to set out a four-step research design decision procedure. The first step is to decide what the research is for; finding explanations, testing hypotheses or describing. The researcher then needs to decide how involved they have to be with the source of research data, how critical they want to be of predetermined categories, and whether they want to do a snapshot or track changes. More on this later.