andersen et al 09 sociolinguistic identity

8/20/2019 Andersen et al 09 Sociolinguistic Identity

1/130

Sociolinguistic Identity

Ditte Andersen, Henrik Holm Kjær, Line Falk Tranberg,

Liv Holm Carlsen, Louise Secher, a!a Coulson, Thea "ielsen

Third Semester, Fall #$$%

H&' ()*)*

Su+ervisor Dorte L-nsmann

*


2/130

Table of Contents

1.0 Introduction and Motivation , +) .

*)* /roblem De0inition, +) 1

*)# 2esearch 3uestions, +) 1

2.0 Delimitations , +) 4

3.0 Theory of Science, +) %

.0 Methodology, +) **

5)* &ntroduction, +) **

5)# 6ur Theories, +) *#

5)( &ntervie7 ethodolog!, +) *5

5)()* &ntroduction, +) *5

5)()# Criticism o0 Focus 8rou+s, +) *9

5)()( Assembling Focus 8rou+s, +) *.

5)()5 Conducting Focus 8rou+s, +) *1

5)()9 &ntervie7ing :thics, +) *4

5)5 6ur Data and Social Constructionism, +) *%

5)9 Trans+arenc! and 6bjectivit!, +) #$

!.0 "ur #$$roach to the #nalysis , +) #*

9)* &ntroduction, +) #*

9)# Transcri+tion, +) #*

9)( Anal!sis ethodolog!, +) ##

%.0 Sociolinguistic Theory& $. 2

.)* &ntroduction, +) #5

.)# Language in Social Situations, +) #5

.)#)* Language and Sociolog! An &nterdisci+linar! Field, +)

#5

.)#)# The &m+ortance o0 Language in Conte;t, +) #9

.)( Language Hierarchies, +) #.

#


3/130

.)5 /erceived Structures o0 Social Situations, +) #.

.)9 Language Determining Conte;t, +) #1

.). :thnicit! as a Linguistic Conte;t, +) #1

.)1 Communication Accommodation Theor!, +) #%

.)1)* 'asic Conce+ts o0 Accommodation Convergence and

Divergence, +) #%

.)1)# Converging or Diverging &n Conte;ts, +) (*

.)4 Cognitive 6rgania! o0 Accommodating, +) ((

.)%)# Code=s7itching as a 2esource, +) (5

.)%)( Code=s7itching as a "eed 2ather than Choice, +) (9

.)*$ Sociolinguistic Conclusion, +) (.

'.0 Identity, +) (1

1)* &ntroduction to &dentit! Through Language, +) (1

1)# ?ou Are >hat ?ou Are, +) (4

1)( &dentit! as a /rocess, +) (%

1)5 &nternal and :;ternal Dimensions o0 &dentit!, +) (%

1)5)* /ersonal As+ect o0 &dentit! = &nternal Conditions, +) 5$

1)5)# Sociological and Cultural As+ect o0 &dentit! = :;ternal

Conditions, +) 5*

1)9 Connection 'et7een Language and &dentit!, +) 5#

1). &dentit! Through a Foreign Language, +) 5(

1).)* Language &dentit!, +) 5(

1).)# "ational= and 'icultural &dentit!, +) 55

1).)( Crisis=stricken &dentit! and &nsecure &dentities, +) 55

1).)5 An @nstable Sense o0 Sel0, +) 5.

1).)9 &dentit! Loss and Declassing, +) 54

1).). &dentit!, Culture and Surroundings, +) 54

(


4/130

1)1 Conclusion, +) 5%

(.0 Introduction to )artici$ants , +) 9*

*.0 #nalysis, +) 9#

%)* &ntroduction to Anal!sis, +) 9#

%)# Formation o0 &ngrou+ and 6utgrou+, +) 9(

%)( Language :;+ressing /o7er 2elations, +) 9.

%)5 Hierarchies >ithin 8rou+s, +) 94

%)9 Code=s7itching, +) .$

%)9)* Frustration Due to Code=s7itching, +) .9

%). Accommodation in Formal and &n0ormal Conte;ts, +) ..

%).)* Convergence and Divergence, +) .1

%)1 Culture and Language @sing Language &nternationall!, +) .%

%)4 "ational &dentit!, +) 1$

%)% &dentit! Change, +) 1(

%)%)* Dimitris Alteration, +) 1(

%)%)# aarjas 6bservation o0 /ersonal Change, +) 19

%)%)( 'ettinas Core, +) 1.

%)%)5 Louises Subconscious Change, +) 11

%)*$ Sub=conclusion, +) 14

10.0 Discussion, +) 1%

*$)* &ntroduction to Discussion, +) 1%

*$)# Focus 8rou+s A 2eliable 2esourceB, +) 1%

*$)( The Accommodated &dentit!, +) 4*

*$)5 Fluid &dentit!, +) 4#

*$)9 Feeling at Home, +) 4(

*$). &nsecurit! in a Foreign Language as a 2esult o0 'oth &nternal and

:;ternal /rocesses, +) 49

11.0 Conclusion, +) 41

**)* Communicating &dentit! Through a "on=native Language, +) 41

5


5/130

**)# Accommodation >ithin the Focus 8rou+, +) 44

**)( Linguistic Con0idence A00ects &dentit!, +) 4%

12.0 +uture )ers$ectives , +) %$

13.0 Dimensions, +) %#

1.0 ,rou$ -eflections , +) %(

1!.0 Critical Discussion of Material sed , +) %5

*9)* Theor! o0 Science, +) %5

*9)# Socio=linguistics, +) %5

*9)( &dentit! Through Language, +) %9

*9)5 &dentit! Through a Foreign Language, +) %9

*9)9 &ntervie7ing ethodolog!, +) %.

1%.0 /ibliogra$hy, +) %4

1'.0 Summary in nglish , +) *$(

1(.0 Summary in Danish , +) *$(

1*.0 #$$endi, +) *$5

*%)* &ntroduction to a Fe7 Linguistic Terms, +) *$5

*%)# Transcri+tion = Focus 8rou+ &ntervie7 #$ th o0 6ctober #$$%, +) *$9

*%)( 6bservers "otes ade During the Focus 8rou+ &ntervie7, +) *#1

9


6/130

1.0 Introduction and Motivation

As students in an international stud! line, 7e 0ound the to+ic o0 bi= and

multilingualism to be ver! interesting and relevant) ost o0 us are Danish studentsstud!ing in :nglish, 7hile the student 7ho studies in her 0irst language is currentl!

learning Danish) All o0 us have, on one occasion or another, 0elt a change 7hen 7e

s+oke a language that 7as not our mother tongue) Ho7ever, 7e 7ere not able to +ut

7ords on 7hat e;actl! this change entailed) 6ur search 0or the ans7er to this uestion

7as the ins+iration 0or our +roject)

8iven the gro7ing interaction bet7een cultures caused b! e;+anding globali


7/130

subconsciousl!, to change or be +erceived in a certain 7a!)

The com+le;it! o0 identit! has been and still is a never=ending +u


8/130

Sub uestions4

Ho7 is identit! a00ected 7hen communicating through a non=native languageB

Ho7 and 7h! do the +artici+ants accommodate in the 0ocus grou+B

2.0 Delimitations

Due to the large subject matter, it is necessar! to delimit our +roject) >e did not 0ocus

on language learning 0rom a more +edagogical angle, because 7e 7ere not interested

in ho7 +eo+le learn or teach languages) >e do not de0ine 7hat it means to s+eak a

language) >e also did not di00er bet7een ho7 7ell languages 7ere s+oken, 7ho the!

7ere s+oken to, b!, or in 7hat conte;t Estud!ing abroad, moving to another countr!

+ermanentl!, or s+eaking a 0oreign language in ones home countr!) The 0ocus 7as

on ho7 the individual 0elt 7hile s+eaking a 0oreign language, 7hether it 7as 0luentl!

or +oorl! s+oken and ho7 that in0luenced the identit!)

&n relation to the theor! o0 science, 7e have limited ourselves to social

constructionism) >e could have made a cha+ter on theor! o0 science, 7here 7e 7ent

through the di00erent 7orld vie7s, but since 7e alread! kne7 our 7a! o0 seeing this

+roject 7as going to be through the lens o0 social constructionism, it did not seem

relevant to e;amine other a++roaches) Though 7e 7ill not go into de+th 7ith social

constructionism, 7e have e;tracted the essential e+istemological and ontologicalissues that are relevant to our em+irical 7ork and our theories)

'ecause the 0ield o0 sociolinguistics is 7ide, 7e have limited ourselves to mainl!

communication accommodation theor! and code=s7itching) This means that 7e have

not gone into the 0ield o0 Gaudience design that deals 7ith accommodation o0

language e)g) intonation, +ronunciation, and 7ord choice according to the audience or

4


9/130

the receiver o0 the message)

>e did not include historical and cultural as+ects in the identit! section, because 7e

0ound it too broad) Furthermore, histor! and culture are highl! tied to the s+eci0ic

countr!, there0ore it 7ould have been necessar! to o+erate 7ith that certain countr!)

>e did not 7ish to do that because 7e did not 7ant to limit ourselves to certain

countries andor certain languages, but rather make a stud! that did not 0ocus on

di00erences bet7een being a 0oreigner in var!ing countries)

>e chose to use a smaller 0ocus grou+ rather than a larger one) >hile large grou+s

can be es+eciall! interesting 7hen stud!ing grou+ d!namics, the! are an unsuitable

choice 0or this +roject) >e also chose to not use the methods o0 meaning coding and

meaning categori


10/130

structuralism* and +oststructuralism #, 7hich argue that the onl! 7a! to access realit!

is through language) There0ore, language has a crucial role in the construction o0 the

7orld E/hilli+s I J-rgensen #$$# *1)

Social constructionism is an anti=realistic a++roach, 7hich argues that our kno7ledge

about the 7orld Mis not a direct +erce+tion o0 realit!N, but that 7e construct our

versions o0 realit! bet7een us) There0ore, it makes no sense to talk about truth since

OaPll kno7ledge is derived 0rom looking at the 7orld 0rom some +ers+ective or

anotherMN E'urr, *%%9 .) &n other 7ords, the 7a! 7e +erceive the 7orld is not an

objective +icture o0 the real 7orldQ it is something 7e construct in the interaction 7ith

others) >ithin these social interactions, there are ongoing battles and negotiations

about 7hat is true and 0alse) Di00erent constructions o0 the 7orld can there0ore

coe;ist, 7hich leads to di00erent social actions) Conseuentl!, there are some actions

that are seen as +er0ectl! common and natural 7hile others are unthinkable 7ithin

one 7orldvie7 E'urr, *%%9 9)

Diametricall! o++osed to social constructionism, is +ositivism) Their discord

+rimaril! arises 0rom their di00erent +hiloso+hies on language) /ositivism claims that

it is +ossible to 0ind an objective truth b! getting behindN language, 7hereas social

constructionism argues that the 7orld can onl! be reached through language since the

7a! 7e s+eak about something constitutes it E6lsen I /edersen, *%%% *5$)

Conseuentl!, social constructionism insists that a critical a++roach, to our taken=0or=

granted kno7ledge about the 7orld and ourselves, has to be taken into consideration,

because 7e see the 7orld through our o7n categories) There0ore, our kno7ledge o0

the 7orld should not be treated as an objective truthN E/hilli+s I J-rgensen, #$$# 9)

This indicates that ever!thing could have been di00erent and that our vie7 on the

* Structuralism can mean di00erent thingsQ here it is re0erring to the Saussurean linguistic a++roach

E'urr *%%9 (. 7here language is seen as a s!stem 7hich is not determined b! the realit! it

re0ers to)E /hilli+s I J-rgensen *%%% *4)# N/ostN as in coming a0ter structuralism and adding to it E'urr *%%9 (%)

*$


11/130

7orld changes de+ending on 7ho 7e are)

&n accordance to the latter, culture and histor! +la! a crucial role because the

categories 7e use in order to understand the 7orld and ourselves are determined b!

7hich culture and histor! 7e live in at the s+eci0ic time) 6ur 7a!s o0 understanding

the 7orld are not just determined b! the culture and histor!, but are +roducts o0 it)

Due to the cultural and historical relativit! 7e cannot see ourN 7a! as the onl!

rightN understanding or more trueN than other understandings o0 the 7orld E'urr

*%%9 5)

Social constructionism is an anti=essentialistic a++roach, since our understandings are

sociall! constructed) &t is im+ossible to sa! that there is a determined nature to +eo+le

or the 7orld and there0ore, there cannot be an essence to be 0ound inside +eo+le

E/hilli+s I J-rgensen, #$$# 9) >hen in 0act O7Pe behave, think and 0eel

di00erentl! de+ending on 7ho 7e are 7ith, 7hat 7e are doing and 7h!)N E/hilli+s I

J-rgensen, #$$# #9) This means that each version o0 a +erson is sociall!

constructed, and conseuentl!, +ersonalit! is not something 7ithin a +erson, it is, on

the other hand, something 7e construct bet7een us E/hilli+s I J-rgensen, #$$# #1)

.0 Methodology

.1 Introduction

This cha+ter 7ill sho7 ho7 7e have chosen to investigate our cardinal uestion and

7h!) oreover, seeing that 7e are ins+ired b! social constructionism, this cha+ter

7ill hel+ make our choices and deselections visible to the reader, in order to make our

+roject trans+arent)

&t 7ould be im+ossible to make the cardinal uestion 7ithout having some idea about

7hat 7e 7anted to investigate) This means that 7e, 0rom the start, constructed a +re=

**


12/130

understanding( o0 the change o0 identit! in relation to s+eaking di00erent languages)

>e are a7are o0 the +it0alls, given that our +rojects +oint o0 origin 7as such a +re=

understanding) 6ur +roject could lose its credibilit! due to the 0act that 7e could be

accused o0 mani+ulating the data in order to con0irm our +re=understanding)

Ho7ever, 7e talked about these +it0alls right 0rom the beginning, 7hich has hel+ed

us in our anal!sis, because 7e did not just look 0or something that could con0irm our

+re=understanding, but also statements 7hich 7ould challenge it)

.2 "ur Theories

Theor! is ho7 7e have chosen to e;amine our em+irical 7ork, in other 7ords, to

understand our data, 7e have to look at them through the selected theories) 6ur

theor! cha+ter consists o0 t7o +arts, +art one e;+lains the socio=linguistic terms,

7hich 7e need later in the anal!sis, and +art t7o de0ines and e;+lains identit!)

>ithin the 0ield o0 socio=linguistics, 7e have chosen t7o main theories,

communication accommodation theor! and code=s7itching) &n communication

accommodation theor!, 7e have em+lo!ed 8iles and Cou+land, since these are the

main theorists 7ithin this 0ield) oreover, the! +erceive language as having multi+le

meanings and de+ending on inter+retation, there0ore not being something 0i;ed) 6ne

could argue that the! are ins+ired b! social constructionism) Due to the 0act that our

+roject deals 7ith changes in identit!, 7e had to a++l! a linguistic theor! that 7ould

deal 7ith change in language, there0ore, code=s7itching 7as a suitable choice)

The +henomenon o0 identit! is multi0aceted, 7here man! tr! to give meaning to it)

6n the basis o0 this, 7e 0ound it best to combine di00erent vie7s 0rom di00erent

( /re=understanding as an understanding o0 something 7ithout certaint!) A +rejudice, but not in the

normal meaning o0 the 7ord, but 7here +eo+le have a +reconceived o+inion about something)

EFuglsang I 'itsch 6lsen, #$$( *$#) &t is here used instead o0 the 7ord h!+othesisN, because

it 7ould not be +ossible to talk about a h!+othesis 7hen our theor! o0 science is social

constructionism) Due to the 0act that 7hen one s+eaks o0 a h!+othesis it lies in the 7ord that

there could be onl! one ans7er to con0irm this h!+othesis, a truth to be 0ound and this is asmentioned not +ossible seen 0rom a social constructionist vie7)

*#


13/130

theorists) 6ur choice o0 theorist 0or the de0inition o0 identit! has +rimaril! been /er

Schult< J-rgensen, 7ho has +rovided a contem+orar! understanding o0 the conce+t o0

identit!) There are man! other a++licable theorists 7ithin this 0ield, but Schult<

J-rgensen conce+tualises identit! 0rom a socio=+s!chological +ers+ective, 7hich is

essential 7hen anal!sing the 0ocus grou+ +artici+ants e;+eriences and re0lections on

certain matters) Schult< J-rgensens de0inition is 0urthermore ins+ired b! social

constructionism 7here he, to some e;tent, dissociates 0rom +revious +erce+tions o0

e)g) a core identit! 7ith an essence that 7ould remain +ersistent)

Additionall!, 7e chose David 'locks a++roach to identit!, because 7e had a mutual

interest and our aim resembled his) He too, is interested in the link bet7een identit!

and language and even more a++ro+riatel!, he 0ocuses on identit! construction

through a second language) He also tries to sho7 identit! b! the means o0 man!

di00erent theorists, 7here man! o0 them, including 'lock, are either in the 0ield o0

+oststructuralism or social constructionism)

Through our investigation, 7e 0ound that there e;ist man! vie7s on identit! and

language, ho7ever, man! o0 them onl! brie0l! touch u+on vie7s that are someho7

similar to our interest and +re=understanding) Thus 7e ended u+ 7ith a combination

o0 man! di00erent theories, 7here 7e selected 7hat 7e sa7 as a++ro+riate in order to

cover the 0ield)

>hat is im+ortant is that all our theories have more or less the same 0oundation in

relation to theor! o0 scienceQ the! all share some o0 the same ideas as social

constructionism)

*(


14/130


15/130

the individuals in the grou+ as individuals Eorgan, *%44 (#)

.3.2 Criticism of +ocus ,rou$s

Focus grou+s are es+eciall! 7ell suited to +roduce em+irical data that describes ho7

7e gras+ things related to ever!da! li0eQ 7hat +eo+le do in di00erent situations o0

ever!da! li0e, ho7 the! e;+erience it, and ho7 the e;+erience is used to understand

other situations EHalkier, #$$# *#) &t is these social e;+eriences that +eo+le dra7 on,

7hich are taken 0or granted in a 7a! that the! are rarel! discussed) This silentN

kno7ledge o0 +eo+les +ractical consciousness can shine through in a 0ocus grou+)

The interaction o0 the grou+ can be hel+0ul to 0orceN +artici+ants to become

discursivel! e;+licit in their communication EHalkier, #$$# *()

Another strength o0 the 0ocus grou+ method is its abilit! to +roduce structured data in

an understandable 7a! about the subject at hand EHalkier, #$$# *1) The method is

not as intrusive as other 0ield7ork or observation, and does not take as much time

0rom the +artici+ants) Furthermore, the researcher does not s+end a lot o0 time

hanging in the 0ieldN and 7aiting 0or something to ha++en in order to +roduce some

unstructured data) 6ne could argue that this also is one o0 the 7eaknesses about 0ocus

grou+ intervie7ing) The lack o0 0ield7ork could mean that the researcher sim+l!

misses out on a lot o0 interesting material, 7here she 7ould have to be +resent in

order to gain access to +eo+les social conte;t E&bid)) This can hinder the o+enness

0rom the researchers side about 7hich social relations and +rocesses are im+ortant in

the conte;t) 60ten the researcher lacks the imagination to 0igure this out on hisher

o7n, and it can a00ect the uestions +roduced 0or the intervie7s)

Though 0ocus grou+s are suited to this +roject, one must still kee+ in mind the

limitations that come 7ith them) Focus grou+s are not the best 7a! to gain

kno7ledge about individuals, since it is im+ossible 0or ever!bod! in a 0ocus grou+ to

sa! as much as the! 7ould be able to in an individual intervie7) oreover, it is most

*9


16/130

likel! that the grou+ +revents more deviant and at!+ical statements 0rom arising

EHalkier, #$$( *.) &n addition to this, the moderator has to be care0ul that the grou+

does not come to com+lete con0ormit! or +olarihile it is

recommended that 0ocus grou+s be homogenous to encourage the +artici+ants to

share their e;+eriences, it is also bene0icial to have a diverse grou+ in order to sho7

more +ers+ectives ELitosseliti, #$$( 5) For this reason, 7e have chosen to structure

our 0ocus grou+s 7ith some similarities, but still leave room 0or di00erences) There

are +eo+les 0rom di00erent backgrounds and cultures selected 0or the grou+) >hat

the! share in common is that the! are all bi= or multi=lingual students attending

2oskilde @niversit!)

There can also be ranges in the sie have

decided u+on using 0our to si; +artici+ants, called a mini 0ocus grou+) Smaller 0ocus

grou+s are bene0icial 7hen the researcher seeks more detailed in0ormation) &t is also

*.


17/130

easier to kee+ the 0ocus o0 the grou+ on the to+ic at hand i0 there are 0e7er members)

.3. Conducting +ocus ,rou$s

A moderator in a 0ocus grou+ intervie7 has to +la! a some7hat di00erent role

com+ared to an individual ualitative intervie7) This is because the 0ocus grou+

intervie7s have a more com+rehensive 0orm o0 social interaction) There are

di00erences in the role the moderator +la!s in the 0ocus grou+s) &t should be noted that

the role the moderator +la!s could a00ect the grou+ d!namics) 6ne o0 the most

im+ortant roles o0 the moderator is to be able to handle the social d!namics in a

grou+) Thereb!, i0 the grou+ is too tightl! controlled, the researcher risks losing one

o0 the most im+ortant things in this t!+e o0 intervie7s that the +artici+ants address

each other, comment each others +oints and ask each other things based on their o7n

e;+eriences EHalkier, #$$# 99)

'ecause o0 this, our moderator 7as +re+ared to take a medium role in the intervie7,

guiding the intervie7 7here it 7as needed onl!) She ke+t the grou+ on track b!

asking o+en=ended and thought0ul uestions) 'ecause 7e 7anted the intervie7 to

have the 0reedom to un0old naturall!, 7e +re+ared discussion uestions be0ore as a

grou+) A0ter 7e had +re+ared these uestions, 7e organie 0elt that

asking direct uestions rather than introducing abstract to+ics 7ould be more

bene0icial 0or the grou+ interaction and ins+iring discussion) Ho7ever, the moderator

still had the 0le;ibilit! to ask 0ollo7=u+ uestions 7hen the! bene0ited the discussion

or engaged more +artici+ants)

>hether a high or lo7 moderator conducts a 0ocus grou+, the! should both have the

same starting +oint) For all 0ocus grou+s, it is im+ortant to begin b! in0orming the

+artici+ants about Mthe to+ic in an honest but 0airl! general 0ashionN Eorgan,

*%44 91) This is im+ortant 0irstl! because the +artici+ants might not be able to relate

*1


18/130

to or understand an in=de+th e;+lanation o0 the research) &t is im+ortant secondl!

because it might restrict the discussion o0 a +reviousl! o+en=minded +artici+ant

E&bid)) >e stated that our research lead us to them because o0 our incom+lete

understandingN o0 their e;+eriences and that 7e 7ere there to learn E&bid)) Another

techniue 7e em+lo!ed as a starting +oint 7as to take a round 7here each +artici+ant

introduced themselves to the grou+ in ans7er to the o+ening uestion) This served as

an icebreaker and also allo7ed the +artici+ants to get to kno7 a little about each other

and see their similarities)

Though 7e +re+ared the uestions and to+ics o0 discussion be0ore the intervie7 as a

grou+, 7e did +re+are them in a certain order) There are 0ive t!+es o0 uestions a

researcher should ask in a 0ocus grou+ intervie7 o+ening uestion, introductor!

uestions, transition uestions, ke! uestions, and ending uestions) The o+ening

uestion should be a 0actual and straight0or7ard) &t should Midenti0! characteristics

that the +artici+ants have in commonN EKrueger, *%%5 95) The introductor!

uestions intend to encourage discussion and re0lection among the +artici+ants) The

transition uestions should hel+ lead to the major uestions o0 the +roject) The ke!

uestions are the major uestions, the +roject seeks to uncover) The ending uestions

hel+ to close the discussion, allo7 the +artici+ants Mto re0lect back on +revious

comments, and are critical to anal!sisN E&bid))

.3.! Intervie6ing thics

As 7ith an! intervie7, the researcher must consider the ethical uestions be0orehand)

Firstl!, 7e gave the +artici+ants the a++ro+riate and valid in0ormation in order 0or

them to give their consent) The +artici+ant should not 0eel lured or tricked into

+artici+ating) >e also o00ered the +artici+ants the choice o0 remaining anon!mous

EFlick, #$$. 5%) /rior to the intervie7, 7e gave all +artici+ants an oral e;+lanation

o0 the intervie7 goals) 6nl! a0ter receiving their consent did 7e begin the intervie7)

>e have also given them the o+tion to vie7 the +roject a0ter its com+letion)

*4


19/130

Ho7ever, 7e later realie 0ound it necessar! to create a time schedule that 7e could

0ollo7 because the! gave u+ their +rivate time 0or us) >e +ut in a little e;tra time in

the end so that the! could leave, either be0ore, or at the +rearranged time) Another

thing 7e did, 7as to e;+lain to them, that 7e 7ere students and could not a00ord gi0ts

such as 7ine, etc), a0ter their +artici+ation, as it is done in bigger anal!tical

com+anies) &nstead 7e +romised them some delicious snacks, co00ee, and a good

discussion 7ith +eo+le in a similar situation to theirs)

. "ur Data and Social Constructionism

>hen doing ualitative research one has to choose 7hich e+istemological a++roach

one 7ishes to use) 6ur a++roach to the kno7ledge 7e gain 0rom the 0ocus grou+ is

ins+ired b! social constructionism) This is based on, among other things, our

disagreement 7ith the +ositivistic a++roach to ualitative research, 7here a

h!+othesis is tested several times 7ith the same outcome EFlick, #$$. 11) Social

constructionisms e+istemolog! states that there is no objective truth to 0ind in the

7orld) &t is incor+orated in social constructionism that 7hatever !our 0indings ma!

be, the! are onl! one version out o0 man! E/hilli+s I J-rgensen, *%%% *#$) >ith

that in mind, 7e are a7are that i0 7e made another 0ocus grou+ com+rised o0

di00erent +eo+le or i0 somebod! else made this +roject, the outcome 7ould not be the

same, but onl! another version o0 the truthN)

'ecause o0 this, it can be di00icult to kno7 ho7 to a++roach the kno7ledge our 0ocus

grou+ +roduced) Ho7ever, there can be some rules o0 validit! indicating 7hat is true

or 0alseN) For instance, 7ithin a s+eci0ic 0ield there o0ten e;ists re+eated statements,

*%


20/130

7hich can indicate that some things are truer than others E/hilli+s I J-rgensen, #$$.

##) To the contrar!, +ositivism claims that M science must and can be conducted in

a 7a! that is value 0ree and objectiveN EFlick, #$$. 14) Social constructionism

argues that all data e;tracted 0rom ualitative methods is a +roduct o0 both the

intervie7er and the intervie7ee) 6n the other hand, +ositivism argues that the data is

out thereN 7hether or not the researcher looks 0or it E&bid) &n regards to our data, it

is im+ortant to note that +eo+le construct their stories and understandings de+ending

on the social conte;tQ being 7ith e)g) 0riends or +arents) These constructions do not

give truth to 7ho 7e are, but the! contribute to the ongoing stor! about 7ho 7e are

EHalkier, #$$( *.)

This again sho7s that our +erce+tion o0 the 7orld can change over time, and

there0ore cannot be de0initive E/hilli+s I J-rgensen, #$$#*5) For e;am+le, i0 7e

had made the intervie7 in the *%9$s the uestions and thus also the ans7ers 7ould

most likel! have been com+letel! di00erent than the ones 7e received 0rom the 0ocus

grou+ in #$$%)

.! Trans$arency and "b7ectivity

>e have to ackno7ledge that our +roject is in itsel0 a social construction, because 7e

cannot avoid to see the 7orld 0rom one +ers+ective or another "o human being can

ste+ outside o0 her or his humanit! and vie7 the 7orld 0rom no +ers+ective at

allMNE'urr, *%%9 *.$) As a result o0 this, our +erce+tion o0 the 7orld has

in0luenced our choice o0 theor! and our research uestion) There0ore objectivit! is

not an o+tion 7hen choosing to have a social constructionist o+tic) Furthermore, 7e

acce+t that our data is constructed b! us as a grou+ and our 0ocus grou+ +artici+ants

E&bid)) Also, our 7a! o0 inter+reting the data is just one readingN and not more

trueN than other readingsN)

As mentioned above, it is im+ossible to test our data +roduced b! the 0ocus grou+ and

#$


21/130

thereb! check its validit!) There0ore trans+arenc! is an im+ortant 0actor in order to

convince the reader o0 the validit! o0 our 0indings) To manage this, 7e have included

the em+irical 7ork in transcribed 0orm and our deselections and selections in order to

sho7 the reader our 7a! 0rom the data to our inter+retations and conclusions E/hilli+s

I J-rgensen, *%%%*(5) 6verall, 7e believe, that b! taking these +recautions, 7e

have made our +roject trans+arent, hence, made it accessible and easier to evaluate

and com+rehend b! the reader)

!.0 "ur #$$roach to the #nalysis

!.1 Introduction

Though anal!sis is one o0 the 0inal ste+s o0 intervie7ing methodolog!, the anal!sis

must be thought o0 even be0ore the intervie7s take +lace EKvale, #$$1 *$#) Some o0

the 7ork o0 the anal!sis rests in the uestions the researcher asks) The researcher

must also decide 7hich t!+e o0 anal!sis the! 7ish to +er0orm be0ore the intervie7)

The! can choose bet7een transcri+t=based anal!sis, ta+e=based anal!sis, note=based

anal!sis, and memor!=based anal!sis EKrueger, *%%5 *5(=5) >e have chosen to do

mostl! transcri+t=based anal!sis, but 7ill occasionall! look to7ards note=based

anal!sis) This is because 7e chose to have one moderator and t7o observers in the

intervie7) The observers 7ere able to take notes, 7hich later +roved valuable to our

anal!sis)

!.2 Transcri$tion

'ecause 7e have chosen to do a transcri+t=based anal!sis, 7e must also have a

methodological a++roach to transcri+tion) Transcribing means to take an intervie7

0rom oral to 7ritten 0orm) Since s+oken language di00ers so much 0rom 7ritten

language, it is im+ortant to realie have to treat

the 0ocus grou+ intervie7 as the social interaction, it is, there0ore it is necessar! to

#*


22/130

transcribe both the uestions and the ans7ers E/hilli+s I J-rgensen, *%%% *(#)

:uall! im+ortant, it is a re0lection u+on the 0act that 7hen 7e transcribe a +iece o0

realit! in 0orm o0 a social interaction 7e change it into a te;t and during this +rocess

7e are alread! making inter+retations E/hilli+s I J-rgensen, *%%% %#) The more

0ocused on language 7e are the more e;act should the transcri+tion be EFlick, #$$.

#%#) The danger 7ith correcting the language is that !ou miss some details such as

the social interaction, doubt in +eo+les tone o0 voice etc) EHalkier, #$$# 11)

There0ore, 7e included the Gehms and hesitations in our transcri+tion)

Furthermore, it is im+ortant to be a7are that it is ver! di00icult 0or other +eo+le than

the observers or moderator 0rom the intervie7 to transcribe) 6thers might not be able

to se+arate the voices 0rom each other and incor+orate the other sounds during the

intervie7 as +recisel! as the +eo+le +resent) &t is ke! to transcri+tion to identi0!

e;actl! 7ho is s+eaking, and in general, to create the most +recise regeneration o0 the

intervie7 in 7riting) This means that even though the +artici+ants talk on to+ o0 each

other, ever!one has to be included in the transcri+tion EHalkier, #$$# 11) &0 it is the

case that someone sim+l! cannot be understood in a given sentence, it has to be

7ritten do7n as not understandable in the transcri+tion) 6ne can 0ind the transcribed

intervie7 in the attached a++endi;)

!.3 #nalysis Methodology

Though the anal!sis has alread! begun 7ith the uestions the researcher asks, the

intervie7 must still be anal!


23/130

discussions, 7hile the content anal!sis t!+icall! +roduces numerical descri+tions o0

the dataN E&bid)) Ho7ever, 7e are more interested in anal!


24/130

%.0 Sociolinguistic Theory

%.1 Introduction

This theoretical section e;amines linguistic actions, 0urthermore the 0actors that

enable one to accommodate language to the surroundings) These issues cannot be

se+arated 0rom languages a00ect on identit!, but the! are concerned 7ith the socio=

linguistic theor! rather than socio=+s!cholog!) This does not mean that this +art 7ill

involve man! technical details concerning such issues as e)g) code=s7itching, rather it

7ill be relevant 0or our anal!sis, as these +henomena might be something that the

+artici+ants o0 our 0ocus grou+ have e;+erienced 0irst=hand) >e are interested in

e;amining these +ersonal e;+eriences, thus our 0ocus lies not onl! on ho7 our

intervie7ees 0eel that language in0luences their +ersonalit!, but also 7h! the! choose

to accommodate)

The sociolinguistic theor! section consists o0 three +arts) The 0irst +art e;amines the

im+ortance o0 seeing language in a conte;t, namel! in di00erent social situations) The

second +art +resents the Communication Accommodation Theor! and the embedded

theor! being relevant 0or our +roject) Thirdl!, the relevant subjects 7ithin the theor!

o0 code=s7itching are e;+lained)

%.2 8anguage in Social Situations

%.2.1 8anguage and Sociology 9 #n Interdisci$linary +ield

Ho7ard 8iles and "ikolas Cou+land E*%%* em+hasi


25/130

be inter disci+linar!)N E8iles I Cou+land, *%%* ;v)

%.2.2 The Im$ortance of 8anguage in Contet

>hen investigating the communicative dimension o0 language, it is essential to see

language in accordance 7ith its conte;t given that language al7a!s is based u+on the

situation in 7hich it is encoded) 6ne can have di00erent a++roaches seeing M

language either as determined b! or as itsel0 determining the natural o0 a social

conte;tN E8iles I Cou+land, *%%* *) &0 language is built u+on the conte;t, then

language is also determined b! the grade o0 intersubjectivit!N that the interlocutors,

the +artici+ants o0 the conversation, share) This means that the more intensive the

interrelation is bet7een the interlocutors, the more esoteric the language becomes

Mmuch o0 language use is built on shared +resu++ositions and shared kno7ledge

about our social conte;tsQ meanings b! 0ar outstri+ the re0erents o0 the 7ords

themselvesN E8iles I Cou+land, *%%* #) The more intersubjectivit! the +artici+ants

share, the more +o7er relations are established, and their relationshi+ becomes more

im+licit) The natural conditions o0 the conte;t thus determine the language use)

As em+hasi


26/130

%.3 8anguage :ierarchies

&n situations 7here language can be said to 0orm a hierarch!, the majorit! language

7ill take a higher +osition than the minorit! language) /ro+er s+eaking, both

+ronunciation and vocabular!, o0 the majorit! language 7ill be connected to

credibilit!, +o7er and authorit! and is also likel! to o+en u+ more +ossibilities)

Ho7ever, kno7ing +arts o0 the majorit! language, but not having a 0ull re+ertoire,

can a00ect ones +osition in the social ladder) &n the same manner, the native language

7ill be im+ortant to kno7, in order to maintain a +osition in the 0amil! or ethnic

grou+ E'ullock I Toribio, #$$% #94) &n the same language hierarchies, it can be an

advantage to kno7 several languages, as 7ell as an insight to the culture o0 each

language and be able to s7itch bet7een languages, and use ones cultural kno7ledge

to generate as much social +o7er as +ossible E&bid))

%. )erceived Structures of Social Situations

There are certain 0undamental dimensions that can be said to underlie +eo+les

+erce+tions o0 social situationsQ namel! co=o+erative com+etitiveQ intense=

su+er0icialQ 0ormal=in0ormalQ dominant=eual and task=orientated non=task=

orientated E8iles I Cou+land, *%%* *() &n a given social conte;t, these 0ive

dimensions are the ones de0ined b! the interlocutors, and 0rom 7hich the! inter+ret

the situation) De+ending on the social grou+, the di00erent dimensions have di00erent

im+ortance and meaning) &t should be noted that +eo+le o0 course not al7a!s are M

consciousl! seeking e;+lanations or tr!ing to assess their cognitive +rocessesN E8iles

I Cou+land, *%%* *9, thus one cannot generalihat is much more

im+ortant, is ho7 s+eakers re+resent themselves cognitivel!, and ho7 s+eci0icall!

the! decode a social situation) &t is im+ortant to see these general standard normative

#.


27/130

7a!s o0 behavior, and !et a subjectivit! 7ithin social interaction) There is a

distinction to be made bet7een inter=individualN and inter=grou+N communication

and +erce+tion) 6n an inter=individual level one sho7s +ersonal identit! activel!,

7hich means that one makes ones o7n characteristics more evident) 6n an inter=

grou+ level, the grou+ creates uni0ormit! and becomes homogenous, 7here

communit! is based on shared belie0s, ideas, behavior etc) E8iles I Cou+land, *%%*

*.)

%.! 8anguage Determining Contet

Having been through theor!, 7here language is built u+on ho7 the interlocutors

inter+reted the social situation, a di00erent angle 7ill no7 be elaborated, 7here the

relationshi+ bet7een language and +o7er is essential) &0 one sees language as

determining a certain conte;t, rather than being caused b! it, then the statement, M

that an! utterance is the conte;t 0or the utterances that 0ollo7 itN, is central E8iles I

Cou+land, *%%* #$) This means that interlocutors can in0luence each other through

linguistic strategies) Furthermore, our language cannot onl! mani+ulate the co=

s+eakers cognition, but also M b! our ver! mouthsM in0luence our o7n

cognitionsN E&bid)) De+ending on the s+eakers +o7er0ulness, she can dominate the

situation) An im+ortant term here is the evaluative meaningN o0 the s+eakers

e;+ressions and statements) The evaluative meaning should be understood in the

sense that M it is then virtuall! im+ossible to describe an eventM in an evaluativel!

neutral manner, since our linguistic choices betra!M our 0eelings to7ards the social

object being re0erencedN E8iles I Cou+land, *%%* #*) An e;am+le o0 this could be

the medias use o0 7ords as uslim, immigrant and second=generation Dane to

describe criminals instead o0 just describing the criminals a++earance) The use o0

these terms, rather than others, has a s+eci0ic negative denotation to the receiver)

%.% thnicity as a 8inguistic Contet

8iles and J) L) '!rne have created the &nter8rou+ odel E*%4#) This model +resents

#1


28/130

the notions o0 ingrou+ and outgrou+) The ingrou+ is the grou+ one is +art o0, 7hich

could be some sort o0 minorit! grou+) The ingrou+ is de0ined b! a set o0 boundaries,

7hich 7ill be 0ormed b! the ethnolinguistic communit!s contrast to the rest o0 the

communit! or the outgrou+) The outgrou+ 7ill have a clear set o0 boundaries that

de0ines it as 7ell, being a t!+ical majorit! grou+ that the second language learner is

not +art o0 E8iles and Cou+land, *%%* *(5=*5$)

According to 8iles and Cou+land, ethnicit! is at large de0ined b! languageQ a

common code can be a determining 0actor in setting the boundaries o0 an ingrou+)

These boundaries are seen in a large scale concerning entire states, as 7ell as in

smaller communities E8iles and Cou+land, *%%* %9)

An ethnic grou+ shares more than just language, non=linguistic boundaries such as

distinctive 0eatures o0 a++earance, belie0s and +aternit!maternit! 0eelings) 8iles and

Cou+land, ho7ever, assert that language is one o0 the most im+ortant 0actors o0

ethnicit! ost ethnic grou+s also have a distinct language or dialect, and these can

o0ten be considered necessar! attributes 0or a 0ull and Glegitimate membershi+ o0 the

grou+N E8iles and Cou+land, *%%* %.) All o0 these linguistic and non=lingustic

0actors sha+e the ingrou+ o++osed to the outgrou+) The! are also +art o0 creating the

social identit! o0 the grou+ and o0 the individual grou+ members E8iles and

Cou+land, *%%* %.=%1)

&0 the general ethnic boundaries o0 a grou+ are so0t or 0le;ible in certain non=linguistic as+ects, the linguistic as+ect 7ill o0ten be seen as that much more im+ortant

to distinguish the ingrou+ E8iles I Cou+land, *%%* %4) For instance, one could

imagine that Danes living in Southern S7eden 7ould maintain their Danish among

each other, to kee+ on de0ining themselves as Danes, even though their general

li0est!le 7ould resemble the local majorit! o0 S7edes in all other as+ects o0 ever!da!

li0e)

#4


29/130

%.' Communication #ccommodation Theory

&n interactive communication there are di00erent modes o0 re+resenting onesel0 both

as an individual and as a member o0 a grou+) The 7a! that one e;+resses meaning

through language is o0 great im+ortance and can be both a conscious or subconscious

matter) Ho7ard 8iles has develo+ed the S+eech Accommodation Theor!, in the

*%1$s, 7hich later develo+ed into Communication Accommodation Theror!, CAT)

Through accommodating language, 7e are able to adjust our communication in

relation to the basis o0 the receiverEs, 7hile also being a7are o0 others adjusting to

us E8iles I Cou+land, *%%* .$, Cou+land, #$$1 .#)

There are di00erent t!+es o0 accommodative +rocesses that can either hinder or

smooth the +rogress o0 the mutual understanding bet7een the +artici+ants o0 a social

interaction Accommodation is to be seen as a multi+l!=organi


30/130

individuals ada+t to each others communicative behaviours in terms o0 a 7ide range

o0 linguistic+rosodicnon=vocal 0eaturesN E8iles I Cou+land, *%%* .() A +erson

7ould tr! to reach a higher recognition and common understanding b! e)g) ada+ting

to a certain dialect 7ithin the communit! shehe is tr!ing to converge to) This also

means that the inter+ersonal di00erences bet7een the interlocutors 7ould be

attenuated or even reduced, as the individual converging 7ould to some e;tent

attem+t to assimilate him=hersel0 through communicative actions E8iles I Cou+land,

*%%* .5) Convergence becomes relevant in second language learning, since a

t!+ical +attern o0 the individuals language acuisition 7ould be to convergeQ not

onl! in accordance 7ith s+eech +atterns but also other socio=cultural elements)

Divergence can be seen as M the 7a! in 7hich s+eakers accentuate s+eech and non=

verbal di00erences bet7een themselves and othersN E8iles I Cou+land, *%%* .9)

Divergence is thus the o++osite o0 convergence, 7here the actor em+hasielsh, +artici+ated in a stud! concerning second language acuisition)

>hen the! 7ere asked about their motives 0or learning >elsh, the intervie7er

described it as a M d!ing language 7ith a dismal 0utureN E&bid)) The +artici+ants

started re+l!ing 7ith more signi0icant >elsh accent than be0ore and diverged 0romthe intervie7er, su++osedl! because o0 their strong cultural values) This e;am+le can

be trans0erred to both individuals and grou+s having the need to diverge themselvesQ

the motive being either de0ensive or o00ensive) A more o00ensive e;am+le o0

divergence 7ould be maintaining ones s+eech divergence because it is +art o0 ones

grou+ identit! and it 7ould thus be de+riving to converge and loseN ones values,

such as a certain language 0orm E8iles I Cou+land, *%%* ..=.1) &t should be

($


31/130

mentioned that just as 7ith convergence, this t!+e o0 accommodation can be seen not

onl! through s+eech acts, but also through bod! language) Ho7ever, the non=verbal

language is not a +ers+ective 7e 7ill elaborate on in this +roject)

The conce+ts have no7 been brie0l! and sim+listicall! described, and it is thus

im+ortant to be a7are o0 the 0act that the! can var! and 0unction in more nuanced

0orms, one can e)g) converge u+7ards or do7n7ards E8iles I Cou+land, *%%* .1)

@+7ards 7ould be in more 0ormal situations and vice versa) @+7ards 7ould mean

having a more advanced language use and do7n7ard a more sim+le) The +erce+tion

o0 the conte;t here in0luences the degree o0 converging) Another essential +oint is

that convergence and divergence can 0unction simultaneousl! on di00erent levels) A

+erson can thus converge in one as+ect, but diverge in others) An e;am+le o0 this

7ould be ho7 +arents converge do7n7ards in language use 7hen raising their

children, but still diverge themselves 7hen having a disci+linar! tone) 6r 7hen

7riting a 0ormal com+laint to a com+an!, 7here one t!+icall! converges 7ith a

0ormal language use, but in the message diverge onesel0 to em+hasi


32/130

social a++roval, the greater the degree o0 convergence there 7ill beN E8iles I

Cou+land, *%%* 1() &t becomes clear that convergence is closel! connected 7ith the

motive o0 a++roval) This does not mean that integration and convergence are al7a!s

conditioned b! one another, 7hich one also has to be a7are o0) Some might diverge

instead)

Linguistic convergence can also have other motives than merel! social ones, as 0or

instance, economic motives) &n a 7ork+lace, one can 0or e;am+le, adjust ones

language to the res+ective 7ork jargon, 7hich can bene0it ones +osition) E8iles I

Cou+land, *%%* 15) &t is thus evident that motives 0or accommodation var! greatl!)

%.( Cognitive "rgani;ation


33/130


34/130

7ords and sentences 0rom di00erent codes to 0orm a meaning) Code=s7itching can be

used both b! +eo+le, 7ho have a 0ull vocabular! in the languages the! s+eak, as 7ell

as b! +eo+le 7ho kno7 onl! +arts o0 languages)

There are numerous technical details involved in the 0ield o0 code=s7itching)

Ho7ever, the 0ocus in this +roject 7ill lie solel! on the social +ers+ective o0 itQ

+articularl! the code=s7itching bet7een di00erent languages as bi=or multilinguals

might do)

Code=s7itching can also be used to distance or diverge onesel0 0rom the out=grou+ or

sim+l! just a member o0 the out=grou+ 7ho does not s+eak the same codes) Code=

s7itching is seen as a 7a! o0 e;+ressing identit! and signalising belonging

E>ardhaugh, #$$. *$4=% >e are 7hat 7e are, but 7e do have the abilit! to

+resent ourselves in di00erent 7a!s)N E>ardhaugh, #$$. **5=*9)

%.*.2 Code5s6itching as a -esource

According to the Cambridge Handbook o0 Linguistic Code=S7itching E'ullock I

Toribio, #$$% %1=%4, code=s7itching is in itsel0 a socio=linguistic 7a! o0 acting)

This e;+lains the large amount o0 variation o0 code=s7itching in grou+s, but also

7ithin an individuals code=s7itching re+ertoire) As mentioned above, code=

s7itching also takes +lace amongst +eers to sho7 s!m+ath! and solidarit!, but there

is also code=s7itching taking +lace 7ithin hierarchies o0 age and social rank) Code=

s7itching can, in this regard, be seen as a resource Factors 7ithin the conversation

7here CS9 takes +lace CS is a major conversational resource 0or s+eakers, +roviding

0urther tools to structure their discourse be!ond those available to

monolingualsN E'ullock and Toribio, #$$% %%) 'ullock and Toribio e;+lain ho7 a

resource 0ull code=s7itcher can use the di00erent codes to avoid con0licts) Adjusting

ones language, b! taking the role o0 a stereot!+e that has either a +ositive or negative

9 CS R code=s7itching

(5


35/130

connotation in societ!) For instance, the code=s7itching used amongst +eers 7ill

+robabl! be di00erent 0rom the one used in a job intervie7) The talented code=s7itcher

7ill be able to bene0it 0rom the societal e;+ectations and adjust to gain most out o0

the situation) This occurs ever! da! and ever!bod! uses code=s7itchingQ o0ten 7ithin

one language) &n this +roject, the 0ocus ho7ever lies in the cross language

communication) Thus, the ne;t section 7ill deal 7ith some o0 the +roblems that

might occur 7hen one code=s7itches out o0 need rather than choice)

%.*.3 Code5s6itching as a >eed -ather Than Choice

So 0ar it has been im+licit that code=s7itching ha++ens b! choice, but another

concern, in the 0ield o0 code=s7itching, is language disorder, erosion and inadeuate

acuisition) >hen dealing 7ith insu00icient language use, 'ullock and Toribio argue

that a language can be acuired inadeuatel! or it can be eroded 7ith time E#$$%

#9.) The actual cause is a com+le; matter and, to some e;tent, uncertainQ it can be

either one o0 the mentioned +ossibilities or a mi;) This can lead to code=s7itching b!

need rather than b! choice E&bid)) According to 'ullock and Toribio, this +roblem

mainl! occurs 0or minorit! grou+s 7ho in their ever!da! li0e, outside the 0amil!,

s+eak mainl! their second language, the majorit! language E&bid) The!, 0urthermore,

state that the earlier the native language is restricted, the +oorer the language skills

7ill be) :)g) adult bilinguals, 7ho have had a large e;+osure to their native language

E0irst language throughout their teenage !ears 7ill have an easier time remembering

and em+lo!ing it, than adult bilinguals 7ho have onl! been e;+osed ver! little in

their teenage !ears and adult li0e E'ullock and Toribio, #$$% #91=#.$) Code=

s7itching to the second language out o0 need ma! lead to an e;+erience o0 not being

able to e;+ress onesel0 +ro+erl! according to the situation Lack o0 availabilit! or

accessibilit! o0 certain 7ords and structures can be re0lected in the use o0 CS and

borro7ings 0laggedN 7ith +auses, hesitations, 0alse starts, re+etitions, 0illers,

inaccurac!, and re0ormulation E6lshtain and 'ar


36/130

The 0reuenc! o0 language use 7ill determine the accessibilit! and abilit! o0

mastering it) These issues 7ill mainl! occur, i0 the majorit! language is used 0ar more

than the native) The general insecurit! in the native language might be e;+ressed, as

described above, b! use o0 code=s7itching, but it can also be seen as a mi; o0 native

code and e)g) societal sentence structure E'ullock and Toribio, #$$% #.$=.*)

%.10 Sociolinguistic Conclusion

Through Communication Accommodation Theor!, it is evident that the dimensions o0

assimilation, a++ro;imation, social inter+retation etc) are essential, 7hen concerned

7ith accommodation or sociolinguistic distanceQ convergence and divergence E8iles

I Cou+land, *%%* 4%) There can be di00erent motives 0or both linguistic actions, but

most im+ortantl!, the! should all be seen in their conte;ts) Conte;t means the grade

o0 intersubjectivit! shared bet7een the interlocutors, also the setting and the +ur+ose

o0 the social situation etc) 6ur conte;t 7ill be bi= and multilinguals and navigating

bet7een native and 0oreign languageEs, 7hich 7ill thus combine theor! on conte;t

and accommodation)

Furthermore, ethnicit! and the 0eeling o0 belonging to some grou+ rather than

another, 7ill a00ect the 7a! one ada+ts ones language to adjust according to the

social situation) Code=s7itching, as 7ell can be considered a 7a! o0 accommodating

to the surroundings 0or those, 7ho have the +ossibilities o0 s7itching and mi;ing

bet7een several languages) Ho7ever, code=s7itching is not onl! a resource, but canalso be a necessit! in certain situations, i0 one or more codes are not learned or

sustained +ro+erl!)

(.


37/130

'.0 Identity

'.1 Introduction to Identity Through 8anguage

&dentit! has long been an object o0 academic stud!) Ho7ever, in recent times, therehas been an increasing interest in the a++roach o0 stud!ing identit!, 0or instance

through the escalating a7areness o0 sel0=identit! as a result o0 modernit!

E8iddens., *%%*) an! ne7 conce+ts and +ers+ectives on identit! have blossomed

during the last 9$ !ears) &t is thus im+ortant to take these various and constantl!

develo+ing +ers+ectives into account, 7hen conce+tualie 7ill attem+t

to con0ine our investigation to social and +ersonal identit! 0irst and 0oremost, and

e;amine its relationshi+ 7ith language and, additionall!, through a 0oreign

language) Due to the 0luid subject matter, 7e 7ill have to circle 7ithin some other

0ields o0 identit!, such as national identit! and identit! crisis)

>e have attem+ted to 0ind some de0initions, 7e can relate to in our stud! o0 socio=

linguistic identit!) &n this +roject 7e e;amined identit! 0rom a social constructionist

+ers+ective, 7here identit! is com+rehended as something 0luid)

"udansk 6rdbog Ethe /resent=da! Danish Dictionar! de+icts identit! as 0ollo7s

derives 0rom Latin R &dem R same, same as Ein0luenced b! Late Latin

essentits, being, identidem, re+eatedl!, 0rom id, it) &n addition, Stuart

Hall1 holds the 0ollo7ing o+inion on the matter M identities actuall! come 0rom

.

'ritish sociologist Eborn *%(4)1 'ritishJamaican cultural theorist and sociologist Eborn *%(#)

(1


38/130

outside, the! are the 7a! in 7hich 7e are recogniithout the others there is no sel0,

there is no sel0=recognitionN EHall, *%%9) Hall also argues that identit! is never

uni0ied, and in late modern times it is rather increasingl! 0ragmented and 0ractured

EHall I Du 8a!, *%%. #) Some in0luential 0actors contributing to this could +erha+s

be the increasing globalisation or the mass movement o0 +eo+le that Anthon!

8iddens and !gmunt 'auman4 also discuss) Hall and Du 8a! E*%%.,

conce+tuali


39/130

+ermanent +art o0 the identit!, 7ith the likeliness o0 changing, is still an ongoing

discussion)

'.3 Identity as a )rocess

/er Shult< J-rgensen% E*%%% understands identit! as something one attem+ts to create

or construct, 7hich takes +lace 7hen interacting 7ith others, through li0e e;+eriences

b! +er0orming something, and during ever!da! li0e) The construction o0 identit! is a

constant +rocess that never ceases) “Identity is accordance with others and with

itself. The social identities represent various options that are being tested, assessed,

contemplated, and involved/implicated in the core one gradually constructs as an

adequate image of oneself: the personal identity !" E'r-ru+ et al, #$$( *1%)

Furthermore, Schult< J-rgensen de+icts identit! as having t7o dimensions the

+ersonal Einternal and the social Ee;ternal identit!) :ver! construction o0 identit!

consists o0 both dimensions) Ho7ever, the! are not inse+arable, but intert7ined

+rocesses that are continuousl! in interaction ESchult< J-rgensen, *%%% 54=.#) Thus,

the construction o0 identit! is highl! de+endent on societ! and hereb! culture,

occurring both 7ithin and around the individual)

'. Internal and ternal Dimensions of Identity

The internal conditions are based on ever!thing that is ha++ening 7ithin us

E+s!chological 0actorsQ ho7 7e +erceive ourselves, 7hat 7e stand 0or, ho7 7e 7ant

to be, etc) The e;ternal conditions are based on ever!thing that is ha++ening around

us Esociet! and culture, 7hat social grou+ andor communit! 7e are included in, ho7

others +erceive us etc) &dentit! is thus both the +ersonal li0e stor!N as 7ell as the

social role one acuires or is ascribed 7ithin the communit! one is a +art o0 E&bid))

Ho7ever, although identit! should be understood as a +rocess, Schult< J-rgensen still

claims the e;istence o0 a core 7ithin the identit!) The core consists o0 a +ermanent

% /er Schult< J-rgensen E *%(( Danish +ro0essor at Danmarks /ædagogiske @niversitet EDanish

School o0 :ducation, earlier chairman 0or '-rnerUdet EChildrens Council)*$ 67n translation

(%

http://da.wikipedia.org/wiki/1933http://da.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danmarks_P?dagogiske_Universitethttp://da.wikipedia.org/wiki/B?rner?dethttp://da.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danmarks_P?dagogiske_Universitethttp://da.wikipedia.org/wiki/B?rner?dethttp://da.wikipedia.org/wiki/1933


40/130

+art that is transmitted 0rom arena to arena and interacts 7ith the rest o0 the

in0luential 0actors) Ho7ever, he dissociates 0rom the traditional +erce+tion b! stating

that this core undergoes changes and can be in0luenced throughout li0e)

'..1 )ersonal #s$ects of Identity 9 Internal Conditions

Jan T-nnes Hansen** de+icts the internal conditions o0 identit! as the individuals

+ersonal stor! in that it entails ever!thing 0rom e;+eriences to adventures) He

distinguishes bet7een the &N and the meN) The &N denotes the +art o0 the individual

that acts, re0lects, thinks etc) and 0urthermore embodies the conscience) The meN is

com+rehended as the inner essence,N the +ersona 7ithin the individual, the +art that

is sho7n out7ardl! that others relate to) This causes the belie0 o0 being good

enoughN and moreover it also causes sel0=esteem ET-nnes Hansen, #$$$ *1) T-nnes

Hansen argues that it is not enough to want to be onesel0, one also has to

act accordingl! to onesel0, it is thus not onl! the as+iration o0 7anting to be someone,

one also has to actuall! act and be that +erson) He em+hasi


41/130

'..2 Sociological and Cultural #s$ects of Identity 9 ternal Conditions

Thomas iehe*# argues, 0rom a socio=+s!chological +ers+ective, that toda! it is u+ to

the individual him=hersel0 to create hisher o7n 7orld Eiehe, #$$( 44) This means

that one is the architect o0 hisher o7n identit!) The constructed +rivate 7orldN

hence becomes a collection o0 +rivate and contem+orar! cultures norms and values,

7hich the individual 7ill see as the 0oremost im+ortant in hisher li0e E&bid)) The

individual alone has to ascribe arte0acts and situations di00erent values, inter+ret signs

7ithin culture in order to understand the 7orth o0 onesel0, and 0urthermore, 7hat she

stands 0or and re+resents) 8iddens dra7s attention to the 0act that the construction o0

identit! is a +rocess that constantl! must be created and develo+ed b! the individual)

The individual is thus continuousl! 0aced 7ith ne7 decisions that have to be made,

7here the conseuences are +re=calculated andor unkno7n) And 0urthermore, he

argues that the close relations become the object o0 re0le;ivit!Q

A +erson onl! becomes committed to another 7hen, 0or 7hatever reason, she or he

decides to be soN E8iddens, *%%* %*=( and has the time 0or it one e;clusivel! has

to choose 7ho to be 7ith, and 7hen this 7ill 0it 7ith ones +rivate 7orldN) These are

the +ure relationsN according to 8iddens E*%%*)

8iddens distinguishes bet7een t7o kinds o0 re0le;ivit!) The 0irst one is a common

trait in +eo+leQ thinking 7hen acting, called a re0le;ive act regulation) The other is a

distinctive characteristic concerning modernit!, 7hich occurs at t7o levels at an

institutional and at a +ersonal level) 2e0le;ivit! in the modern societ!, 8iddens

argues, is understood as the stead! use o0 obtained kno7ledge about conditions 0or

modern s!stems and social organisation 0orms) The augmentation in sel0=re0lection is

mainl! b! means o0 mass communication 7here the +ast, +resent and 0uture become

noticeable and are em+lo!ed as a mirror in relation to re0lection) The social +ra;es,

the actions e;ecuted b! the individual, are continuall! being studied) The mirror is

su++osed to s!mboli


42/130

others, and hence become sel0=re0le;ive u+on o7n actions) &t is a sort o0 cause and

e00ect, 7here an individuals actions cause an e00ect that the individual 7ill later

re0lect u+on) The result can then conseuentl! change due to ne7 acuired

in0ormation, 7here the +receding actions can be understood as linked to traditions,

and 0urthermore 7ere not able to be thought be!ond those traditions)

Ho7ever, it cannot be concluded that re0le;ivit! im+lies a su+erior or more reliable

kno7ledge) &n contrast, re0le;ivit! does cause insecurit!, and thereb! doubt due to the

constant re0le;ivit!, 7hich means that ever!thing is being rethought and revised

inde+endentl! o0 traditions E Kas+ersen, #$$* *#9=*#1)

'.! Connection /et6een 8anguage and Identity

&dentit! can be com+rehended as sel0=de0ined) 6ne de0ines ones o7n identit!, the

sel0=+erce+tionQ 7ho one is along 7ith others +erce+tion o0 himher) &t is through

interaction and hereb! language that one 0indsN onesel0, and thus constitutes ones

identit!) &n this relationshi+, language +la!s an essential +art, given that it is through

language 7e can e;+lain to others 7ho 7e are and 7hat 7e re+resent, but also

understand ho7 others +erceive us) /eo+le strive to achieve the acce+tance o0 others)

At the same time this acce+tance creates breeding ground 0or the develo+ment and

construction o0 identit!, because it is 7ithin this grou+ or communit! that 7e are a

+art o0, and at the same time identi0! 7ith) Furthermore, iehe argues that +eo+le

choose 7ho the! 7ant to be 7ith in their o7n +rivate 7orldN or communit!

and, b! this, indicate 7hat communit! the! belong to, and hereb! ho7 the! 7ant to

be +erceived Eiehe, #$$( 4%) The social grou+ and communit! one is +resent in, is

there0ore highl! im+ortant in relation to identit!) &t is, ho7ever, not onl! the social

as+ect that is meaning0ul to our identit!, but also the verbal behaviour, given

that it is through this one is actuall! able to e;+ress themselves and e;+lain 7ho the!

are, 7hat the! think, and their o+inion on di00erent as+ects o0 li0e E@ldal Christensen,

#$$5) Hence language becomes a tool, as a means o0 e;+ression, and additionall!,

5#


43/130

choice o0 7ords and ho7 the! are em+lo!ed is essential 7hen +resenting onesel0)

&ntonation, voice, and choice o0 e)g) divergence or convergence are all a +art o0

identit!, and all these as+ects are central to a com+lete understanding o0 a +erson)

&dentit! is an inevitable +art o0 ever!da! li0e e)g) in school, 7hen acuiring a ne7

language, at the 7ork+lace and so on) 6ne is al7a!s more or less 0orced to +er0orm

7ho the! are through interaction 7ith others, thus also through language)

Lastl!, language and identit! remain as t7o terms constantl! interacting 7ithin ever!

as+ect o0 ever!da! li0e Euniversit!, job, s+ort activities etc)) Social communities

7ithin s+eci0ic conte;ts Elanguage school, among 0riends or 0amil! etc) +la! a great

+art 0or the individuals usage o0 language as 7ell as 0or the construction o0 identit!

E@ldal Christensen, #$$5)

'.% Identity Through a +oreign 8anguage

'.%.1 8anguage Identity

As mentioned above, language inevitabl! contributes to de0ining a +ersons identit!

through interactions) Language is there0ore a s!mbolic marker o0 identit!, and

constructed through language) &dentit! is thus sociall! constructed)

>ithin one language, it is +ossible to have several identities, or roles, as the! also can

be seen as) For instance, certain 7ords or a certain language are used 7ith +arents,

7hile another is used among 0riends) This is usuall! not something that an!one

attaches an! signi0icance to) This e;em+li0ies ho7 one undertakes di00erent roles

during the da! in just one language and o0ten 7ithout even noticing it) "evertheless,

one might develo+ a com+letel! di00erent identit! 7hen e;+ressing something

through another language than ones mother tongue) &n relation to that, David

'lock *( E#$$1 de0ines language identit! as )))the assumed andor attributed

relationshi+ bet7een ones sense o0 sel0 and a means o0 communication 7hich might

*( Senior lecturer in languages at the &nstitute o0 :ducation, @niversit! o0 London)

5(


44/130

be kno7n as a language, a dialect or a sociolect*5N E'lock, #$$1 5$)

'.%.2 >ational and /icultural Identity

6ne can both be obliged to s+eak a 0oreign language in ones o7n or in a 0oreign

countr!) &n relation to this, the issue o0 7hether or not a 0oreigner acuires a national

identit!, 0rom the s+eci0ic countr! that she is currentl! living in, arises) :ven though

ever!one has their o7n +ersonal identit!ies, there 7ill most likel! al7a!s be overall

identities o0 a countr! consisting o0 7ides+read common vie7s and o+inions related

to li0est!le and values) As 'reak7ell, stresses #t$here is no such thing as a %national

identity% in an absolute sense. &very nation has many national identities since each

individual, in social conte't, negotiates what the meaning of his or her national

identity is and can renegotiate moment by moment N E'reak7ell in 6akes, #$$* (%)

These national identities along 7ith values, li0est!les etc) could +la! an im+ortant

role in acuiring a ne7 language) This is mainl! because the degree o0 agreement and

s!m+ath! o0 these subjects can a00ect the a++roach o0 the learning +rocesses) This

issue is, according to 'lock, +ointed out b! >allace :)

Lambert*9, 7hen he treats bicultural *. identit!, 7hich takes the individuals a00iliation

to a certain countr! into consideration) Conseuentl!, a bicultural identit! is

de+endent on the 0eelings concerning a countr!, be that o0 its language, +eo+le or

culture in general E'lock, #$$1 9$, uoting Lambert, *%1#) This is im+ortant, i0

moving to another countr!, going abroad or travelling 0or a long +eriod o0 time)

'.%.3 Crisis5stric@en and Insecure Identities

'eing in a +osition 7here one cannot use hisher mother tongue as means o0

e;+ression, 0or instance because it is not s+oken in the given social setting or countr!,

identit! can ultimatel! become unstable) This is a result o0 not being )))the 0irst

*5 A sociolect is a variet! o0 a language that the members o0 a +articular social class or social grou+

s+eak E6;0ord Advanced Learners Dictionar!)*9

Former Canadian +ro0essor o0 social +s!cholog! and bilingualism E*%##=#$$%)*. 6ne 7ho +ossesses t7o cultural identities)

55


45/130

language sel0N, 7hich is de0ined as )))the sel0 that could make itsel0 kno7n, to the

7orld and to itsel0, in its 0irst languageN E8ranger, #$$5 9.) As an e;am+le, native

:nglish s+eaker 2ichard Schmidt carried out a 0ive months stud! in 2io de Janeiro,

'rahile learning /ortuguese, he e;+erienced 0rustrations due to the

inabilit! to be himsel0) >hile teaching in a universit! he 0ound the breaks in the sta00

room +articularl! embarrassing due to the silence caused b! his lack o0 /ortuguese

small talk skills) :ven though the! +rogress, the same e;+erience emerges on several

occasions) These observations can be seen as changes in identit!, because he is

inca+able o0 e;+ressing his thoughts, and thereb! acting as he usuall! 7ould or as his

native language identit! usuall! 7ould)

Ho7ever, Schmidt does not lose his courage and 0eels incited to learn more,

7henever he starts s+eaking and 0inds out that he is unable to 0inish the sentence or

e;+ress e;actl! 7hat he 7ants to) :ncouragement thus eases the learning +rocess and

s+eeds u+ the regaining o0 his lost identit!) At the end o0 his sta!, Schmidt concludes

that he never did 0eel M as though he 7as a 7hole human being in

/ortugueseN E'lock, #$$1 1*) Schmidt is tr!ing hard both to learn the language and

socialise 7ith the 'ra


46/130


47/130

comes naturall!, 7hen it does not need to be 0ought 0or, earned, claimed and

de0endedN E'auman, *%%% ;;;) '! natural, he means a gesture or s+eech act

+er0ormed 7ithout a thought, because it is carried out as it usuall! is, more or less

subconsciousl!) For instance, one rarel! thinks 7hen ada+ting language according to

social conte;t) Ho7ever, 7hen being situated in a 0oreign countr! or sim+l! 7hen

being obliged to s+eak a 0oreign language Eas in the e;am+le above 0rom 'ra


48/130

sociohistorical, cultural and linguistic environmentN suddenl! changes and becomes

inde0inable it can cause a destabilisation o0 the individuals sense o0 sel0 E'lock,

#$$1 #*)

'.%.! Identity 8oss and Declassing

Another as+ect o0 identit! is declassing E'lock #$$1 %*) This conce+t em+hases

ho7 an other7ise skilled and intelligent +erson can end u+ being +erceived as

incom+etent or unintelligent +erson, due to mis+erce+tion because she is inca+able

o0 s+eaking the language E'roeder et al), *%%., according to 'lock #$$1 4*) This is

a clear misunderstanding o0 not just abilities, but also o0 identit!) &t can cause a loss

o0 kno7n identit!, because the individual suddenl! 0inds him=hersel0 in un0amiliar

+ositions that she are actuall! over=uali0ied to e;ercise, or in bet7een 0oreign

+eo+le that are 0ar 0rom their kno7n and sa0e lives) There0ore, the social status can

change hierarchicall!, even though the +erson might have been o0 im+ortant matter in

herhis home countr!) Ho7ever, it is not onl! the social status but also the identit!

that is in0luenced b! this in that one also measures onesel0 0rom ones job, social

circle econom! etc) This means that 7hat is also im+ortant 0or the construction o0 an

identit! is social and cultural ca+ital, to em+lo! 'ourdieus 0ruit0ul

terms*4) Ho7 one comes across and conseuentl! is +erceived b! the natives in a

0oreign countr! can ultimatel! be o0 great im+ortance in relation to the 0ormation o0 a

ne7 identit! in a 0oreign language)

'.%.% Identity& Culture and Surroundings

&dentit! is thus also linked to culture, and usuall! a +ersons identit! is sociall!

constructed through the culture that she is brought u+ in) &0 the +erson is then taken

a7a! 0rom the +articular culture, it might invoke a con0used identit!) Language

constitutes, as mentioned, the identit! to a high degree) This is also stressed b!

*4 French sociologist /ierre 'ourdieu describes the +henomenon cultural ca+ital as the educational,

social and intellectual kno7ledge as 7ell as high cultural kno7ledge that can be +ossessed b! anindividual EAndersen I Kas+ersen, #$$1 (9#)

54


49/130

'ro7n E*%4$, 7ho states that M !our sel0=identit! is ine;tricabl! bound u+ 7ith

!our language, 0or it is in the communicative +rocess the +rocess o0 sending out

messages and having them bouncedN back that such identities are con0irmed,

sha+ed and resha+edN E'ro7n, *%4$ 9(=95) This su++orts ho7 creating an identit!

is all about communication, inde+endentl! o0 ho7 bad the language is) As long as

something comes out, +eo+le 7ill be able to +erceive the individual in one 7a! or the

other, 7hich the! cannot do, i0 nothing is communicated) This also means that i0 a

+erson usuall! is 0unn! at home but cannot master the 0oreign language 7ell enough,

she might not be as 0unn! in the 0oreign countr! as she usuall! is, thus a change o0

identit!) The more ones identit! changes, the more con0used one can get) This is

es+eciall! relevant i0 one cannot recognise him=hersel0 in the 0oreign language)

'.' Conclusion

From an earl! age, +eo+le consciousl! or subconsciousl! categorise themselves, as

7ell as others, into social grou+sQ that be according to ethnicit!, nationalit! etc) The

values ascribed to the individual through their membershi+ o0 a certain grou+, can be

seen as contributing to their +ersonal identit! E6akes #$$* (9) Thus, 7hen an

individual leaves that grou+, the identit! can become insecure, because the individual

is no longer 7ith hisher social grou+) This is ho7 identit! can change through ne7

constellations, consisting o0 both ne7 +eo+le and a ne7 language)

Ho7ever, in a second language it is not solel! about the identit! that is inhabited or

has develo+ed in the individual, 0or instance through belonging to a social grou+) &t is

ver! much also the identit! that is ascribed or attributed b! others through

interactions) &n other 7ords ho7 one is +erceived) This is crucial in ne7

surroundings, 7here +erce+tion easil! can be based on misunderstandings 0or

instance i0 the subject is not ca+able o0 e;+ressing 7hat she aimed 0or) This can

ultimatel! result in mis+erce+tions 7here individuals can develo+ a 0eeling o0 not

belonging E'lock #$$1 *91) Hence, it reuires re0lection to interact in ne7

5%


50/130

constellations, because the individual is 0orced to consider ho7 to +resent him=

hersel0 and hisher identit! in a ne7 linguistic setting)

Conseuentl!, 7hen learning to s+eak a ne7 language, it is not sim+l! a matter o0

)))ado+ting 0oreign norms o0 behaviour but about 0inding an acce+table

accommodation bet7een ones 0irst culture and the target cultureN E'lock, #$$1 **.,

uoting Liddicoat I Cro


51/130

(.0 Introduction to )artici$ants

6ur 0ocus grou+ consisted o0 0our +artici+ants 0rom var!ing backgrounds) >hile the!

7ere largel! di00erent 0rom one another, 7hat the! had in common 7as theircommand o0 t7o or more languages, and that the! studied on the international line at

2oskilde @niversit!) Though the! attend the same universit!, none o0 them are close

0riends) /rior to the intervie7, 7e gave each +artici+ant a small uestionnaire in order

to assess their linguistic histor!) Follo7ing 7ill be a brie0 descri+tion o0 each

+artici+ant)

Dimitri is a *% !ear=old male 7ith Danish, American, and 8reek backgrounds) His

mother comes 0rom Denmark, his 0ather is a 0irst=generation 8reek=American, and

Dimitri gre7 u+ in America) &n his home, he gre7 u+ s+eaking 8reek to his +arents

and :nglish to his sisters, 7hile outside o0 the house he s+oke :nglish onl!)

There0ore, both can be considered his mother tongues) At the age o0 eighteen he

began to learn Danish) Ho7ever, he is not com+letel! 0luent in it) Though he has

gone to schools in America, 8reece, and Denmark, the! have all been international

schools, 7here :nglish 7as the o+erating language) There0ore, he 0eels most

com0ortable 7ith the :nglish language) He has been living in Denmark 0or one !ear

and does not kno7 ho7 long he 7ill remain here)

Louise is a #* !ear=old 0emale that is Danish and has Danish as her mother tongue)

She also s+eaks :nglish, 8erman, and French and began learning these languages at

around the age o0 si;) &nside and outside her home she s+eaks both Danish and

:nglish, although she 0eels most com0ortable 7ith the :nglish language) She has

been thinking in :nglish since the age o0 *#)

aarja is a ## !ear=old :stonian 0emale) Her mother tongue is :stonian) She also

s+eaks :nglish and has kno7ledge o0 some Danish and 2ussian) She began learning

9*


52/130

these languages in +rimar! school) &n Denmark she s+eaks both :nglish and Danish

outside o0 her home 7hile she s+eaks :nglish inside her home, and in social settings)

'ecause she has been living in Denmark and o+erating in :nglish 0or three !ears, she

0eels as com0ortable 7ith :nglish as she does 7ith :stonian) She does not kno7 ho7

long she 7ill remain in Denmark)

'ettina is a *% !ear=old 8erman 0emale) She s+eaks 8erman, :nglish, and French)

>hile 8erman is her mother tongue, she began learning :nglish 0rom birth) Though

she gre7 u+ in 8erman!, her education 7as in :nglish) Thus, she is euall!

com0ortable 7ith both 8erman and :nglish) She started learning French at around the

age o0 *$) >hile at home 7ith her +arents, she s+eaks 8erman) >hen at home, she

s+eaks various languages de+ending on 7hom she is 7ith) She has been in Denmark

0or t7o months and +lans to sta! here 0or a total o0 si; months)

Though 7e originall! thought 7e had gathered students 0rom di00erent backgrounds,

7e 0ound out in the intervie7 that this 7as not the case) 'oth 'ettina and Dimitri

attended international schools 7hile gro7ing u+) These schools use the &nternational

'accalaureate E&' s!stem, meaning that each &' school 0ollo7s the same curriculum

so the! are es+eciall! suited 0or children 7ho move bet7een countries)

*.0 #nalysis

*.1 Introduction to #nalysis

To +rovide a thorough anal!sis o0 the collected data, it is im+ortant to see di00erent

la!ers o0 sociolinguistic interactionQ the ones +la!ed out 7ithin the 0ocus grou+

intervie7 and the ones taking +lace in other social situations described b! the

interlocutors) This entails both a conscious and a subconscious level to anal!


53/130

ha++ens during the intervie7) This matter 7ill be taken into consideration on the

basis o0 our theories and the conducted intervie7)

The anal!sis is divided into seven +arts, 7here each +art 7ill consider the above

mentioned) /art * e;amines the establishment o0 an in= and outgrou+, both 7ithin the

0ocus grou+ and outside as 7ell) This is one o0 the 0irst actions that occurs during the

intervie7) /art # treats +o7er relations and hierarchies in relation to languages, given

that language hierarchies are 0ormed 7ithin the grou+, as t7o o0 the interlocutors

consider themselves native :nglish s+eakers) /art ( is concerned 7ith code=

s7itching, as a method o0 accommodating or o0 necessit! in certain social situations)

'oth 7ill be e;amined as seen concretel! in the intervie7 and according to the

+artici+ants e;+eriences) /art 5 is euall! concerned 7ith communication

accommodation as the +artici+ants have e;+erienced it and as it is inevitable in the

intervie7) /art 9 is concerned 7ith the link bet7een language and culture) >e

e;amine the +artici+ants di00erent +erce+tions and e;+eriences on this subject in

relation to their backgrounds) /art . investigates national identit!, considering the

connotation o0 home and 0eeling o0 belongingN) Lastl!, +art 1 covers a thorough

e;amination o0 each o0 the +artici+ants relations to identit! change, both on a

conscious and subconscious level)

Throughout this section, the most im+ortant 7ords, +hrases or sentences 7ithin the

e;am+les 7ill be marked in bold t!+ing, and the e;am+les 7ill be in italics to

se+arate them 0rom the rest o0 the te;t) Furthermore, the +artici+ants 7ill be re0erred

to b! their 0irst initials in the transcri+tion uotes)

*.2 +ormation of Ingrou$ and "utgrou$

There 7ere t7o di00erent backgrounds amongst the +artici+ants o0 our 0ocus grou+,

an international, shared b! 'ettina and Dimitri, and a monolingual, shared b! Louise

and aarja) This uickl! leads to a se+aration bet7een an ingrou+ de0ined b! 'ettina

9(


54/130

and Dimitri, and an outgrou+ consisting o0 Louise and aarja) The connection

established a++ears 0rom the 0ollo7ing e;am+le

' (I basically grew up spea)ing both *erman and &nglish, I went to an &nglish

)indergarten, so &nglish is (#stopped$ In my schooling system we called it the )ind

of +, li)e + was your native language and then -#interruption$ by D: +-cannot

hear what she says because of D0s interruption, and is li)e your foreign language.D Were you IB?

'4 yearh (smiling)

D4 yearh, same here (smiling Ea++endi; *$.)

As seen, 'ettina and Dimitri immediatel! converge to7ards each other and 0orm a

bond consisting o0 the same educational background and on several occasions

de0ining themselves as us o++osed to them i)e) aarja and Louise) This could

indicate an im+licit t!+e o0 divergence

D I mean it goes with( it is a very hard point to ma)e because

the two of us -D and we spea) of internationals and internationali1ation and our

version is completely different from what anyone else in this room believes,

and li)e, international for us means a very specific setting( Ea++endi; **%)

Throughout the intervie7, 'ettina and Dimitris bod! language 7as su++ortive in

looking at one another, laughing consistentl! and mainl! addressing each other)

Furthermore, the! tend to com+lete each others sentences and generall! behave

su++ortivel! to7ards one another) &t is common to have +resu++ositions about social

situations, i)e) di00erent matters 7ill have a various degrees o0 im+ortance de+ending

on the given social situation or conte;t Ec0) /erceived Structures o0 Social

SituationsN cha+ter .)5) &t is uncertain ho7 'ettina and Dimitri have decoded the

situation s+eci0icall!, but still, it can be inter+reted that the! have seen each other as

co=o+erative, rather than com+etitive) 6ne could argue that in this inter=grou+

communication Ebet7een in= and outgrou+ the! have become more homogenous in

their statements in order to signi0! uni0ormit! even 7hen their o+inions are not

necessaril! coherent or identical) Furthermore, as stated in the theor! on identit!,

95


55/130


56/130

can be seen as culturall! and historicall! relative) 6ne could 7onder 7hat this sense

o0 communit! 7ould be based on) Although 'ettinas intension is to em+hasi


57/130

so international in a way, that there is no right way to speak it and there is no right

context as such #interruption$

D &hrm -Disagreeing

' 4eah no5 #laughter from D and $ Because there is a right way to speak it

ecause the right way to spea) it is for other people to understand e'actly what you

are saying, and in order to be able to say what you want to say and have other peopleunderstanding it you have to be at the core of the language .

D 4eah, li)e an +merican would relate to ritish 6ust the same way as an +ustralian

would relate to ritish. +nd the +merican and the +ustralian would understand each

other Ea++endi; *#$)

As seen, there is a strong disagreement bet7een the +artici+ants, 7here 'ettina 0eels

that there is a core in the language that one needs to understand to get the 0ull

communicative +ro0it) Dimitri +rovides e;am+les o0 :ngland, America and Australia,

as i0 these are the onl! nations and the onl! +eo+le 7ho have the +ossibilit! o0

communicating across nations 7ithout misunderstandings, as i0 these are the nations

that solel! +ossess the core of the languageN Ea++endi; *## that 'ettina

mentioned) Dimitri and 'ettina attem+t to de0ine 7hat the! might categori


58/130


59/130

language... Ea++endi; **4)

Dimitri is linking the language abilities 7ithin a grou+ to the status one is ascribed or

acuires) He argues that the better one kno7s a common language, the more

com0ortable one 0eels s+eaking and interacting 7ithin that language) During the

intervie7, it is obvious given that he is s+eaking his native language an

andersen et al 09 sociolinguistic identity

Documents