Rethinking methodology: what language diaries can offer to the study of code choice

Abstract

The self-report questionnaire has served as the primary tool for investigating language maintenance in hundreds of communities over the past 40 years. More recently, it has been employed to investigate language shift amongst first-generation communities where one of the most useful indicators of generational change is the reported pattern of language use. We argue that an alternative effective means to obtain this type of data is through the 'language diary'. Language diaries, ethnographic self-reports of daily speech encounters, have been used as a tool in language acquisition and code choice in multilingual communities, but their value for the study of language use has been largely unnoticed. The current project considers the advantages of this methodology for the investigation of the use of English, Korean, and two mixed codes: Korean with some English (KE) and English with some Korean (EK). The findings show how language diaries provide a range of new insights about language use in the New Zealand Korean community. The paper ends with a discussion of the value of language diaries in pilot studies for ethnographic research.

Language diaries in the study of language use and language choice: the case of Flemish Sign Language and Scottish Gaelic

“…Our respective studies highlight some benefits of using language diaries as a research method to evaluate language use and language choice and investigate multilingual practices (also highlighted by Jones et al, 2000, andStarks &Lee, 2010). Diaries are a useful additional source of data combined with other methods such a surveys, interviews or language portraits.…”

“…Both studies used a similar diary template based on those used by Starks and Lee (2010). Participants were provided with a grid-layout template to provide a structure and also to identify the particular elements of the interaction of interest to the respective studies.…”

“…Language diaries rely on reported language use and thus come with all the limitations associated with reported language use (see also Starks & Lee, 2010;Sundqvist & Sylvén, 2014). In our studies they also came with the limitations of a diary to be completed in a written format.…”

“…Language diaries have been used to collect information about linguistic practices, and in particular the language choice and language use of bi-or plurilinguals (see, for example, de Bres, 2014;Gibbons, 1987;Jones et al, 2000;Lamarre, 2013;Lawson & Sachdev, 2000;Place & Hoff, 2011;Romaine, 1983;Starks & Lee, 2010;Sundqvist & Sylvén, 2014;Ure, 1979). All these studies used solicited entries and selected or recruited participants to report on their use of language and provide contextual information on these encounters.…”

“…Whereas 'go-alongs' and (most) ethnographic audio-and or video-recordings rely on the researcher reporting and selecting the encounters for inclusion, in language diaries participants are the agents of the data collection. This means that they have full ownership of any information that is shared with the researcher, providing choice and control (Pennington et al, 2014;Starks & Lee, 2010).…”