Integrated approach: analysis based on tertia comprationis

The two levels of analysis, that is, the analysis of ELF interaction with focus on regulatory practices and the analysis of the research interviews with focus on the construction of beliefs and expectations of language, are seen as complementary viewpoints on language regulation. Both analyses deal with micro-level language regulation: the ways speakers regulate language in interaction and speaker reports about language. The last part of the analysis (chapter 7) is where these findings are brought together and where they are linked to more macro-level questions of norms and ELF.

Typically, in contrastive analysis, it has been important to establish prior to the analysis that the two (or more) entities to be compared share some qualities in order for them to be comparable in the first place (e.g. James 1980). This common quality of the entities according to which the entities are compared is called tertium comparationis. Any differences found between the entities, then, become significant against this background of ‘sameness’. For instance, in comparative corpus studies, it is important to establish a degree of sameness in the corpora used in the comparative analysis (Connor & Moreno

84

2005). However, in my study, I follow Sørensen (2008, 2010) in that the common denominator is established as a result of the analysis. That is, even if we can say that the study event and interview data are comparable, for instance, on account of the participants being the same, the common denominator was not established prior to the analyses, but rather it was established based on the findings of the analyses. This means that the notion of tertium comparationis is modified in this study to refer to common aspects in the findings of the two analyses, that is, what Sørensen (2010: 56–57) calls

“organising patterns” that cut across the analyses and describe “what is going on” in terms of language regulation (i.e. the phenomenon investigated).⁴⁴ The organising patterns can be seen as pivotal questions that arise as a result of the analyses and that need to be answered to explain the phenomenon. In the comparative analysis, then, the findings are considered in relation to these questions. In order to link the findings to wider discussions around ELF and regulation, I have further linked the questions to the ideologies of language maintenance and the NS ownership of English (see chapter 7) – both ideologies relevant for ELF (see Haberland 2011) – and I thus consider the findings of the two analyses in terms of the key questions, and further in relation to the ideologies.

Importantly, I formulated the tertia comparationis as a result of the two analyses, which means that the tertia comparationis are based on empirical investigation and were thus never isolated factors, but rather always already embedded in the analytical dimensions (cf. Sørensen 2010: 75). The benefit of this tertia comparationis approach is that I skip comparing the findings of the interaction and interview analyses directly to each other, which reduces the risk of explaining findings in one analysis with those of the other. This is important because no causal relation can be expected between the way people interact and how they perceive the interaction. At the same time, however, I retain the possibility of comparing the findings and looking into the different aspects of language regulation highlighted in them. In the process, I get a comprehensive view of language regulation and norm construction at the micro level of ELF users and ELF use.

44 Sørensen (2008, 2010) developed her approach for the purposes of multi-sited ethnography, and she thus seeks for organising patterns across field sites. In her discussion of the comparative method, Sørensen (2010) takes her multi-sited ethnography on media harm (related to computer games) in regard to children as an example. In the study, she collected her data from three field sites. Sørensen (2010) describes how she discovered two organising patterns of media harm by analysing the ethnographic descriptions of the field sites for common mechanisms for the existence of media harm. These organising patterns were (a) a duality of presence and absence of media harm and (b) constructing a friendly

environment. Both organising patterns functioned as a tertium comparationis. They were found in all three field sites, that is, they were attended to by the participants in all the field sites, and thus made media harm comparable across the different sites. In this study, however, I have looked into language regulation in one field site only, but from two different analytical dimensions. The organising patterns are thus sought in the findings of the study event and interview analyses.

85

In addition, the introduction of the macro-level element (i.e. the NS ownership and maintenance ideologies) into the analysis balances the otherwise bottom-up, micro-level analysis.

4.3 Summary

This study takes an integrated approach to language regulation, which means a focus on regulatory practices used in ELF interaction, as well as on participant perspectives on language and regulation. The data come from three study events, the main types of data consisting of study event interactions and research interviews. The analysis of the interactions focuses on language-regulatory practices; the methods used in the analysis are drawn from different interactional approaches to language. The interviews I analyse for student, teacher and English instructor perspectives; the analysis combines elements from discourse analysis and interactional approaches to discourse. The findings are then brought together in a comparative analysis were the findings are considered in relation to macro-level ideologies in an attempt to consider the construction of living norms in ELF interaction on a more general level.

The following chapters focus on the analysis of the study event interactions (chapter 5) and the interviews (chapter 6). Chapter 7 brings the two analyses together, and discusses the findings in the light of norm construction in ELF.

86

5 Language-regulatory practices

This chapter focuses on language regulation in interaction. It looks into the negotiation of acceptability and correctness of language by exploring: (1) explicit regulation and the construction of boundaries between unacceptable (or incorrect) and acceptable language, and (2) more tacit regulation and the scope of acceptability. The first part focuses on language correcting and commentary on language (section 5.1). It is concerned with, on the one hand, what speakers consider to be ‘correct’ or wholly adequate, and on the other, what falls outside the scope of acceptability and is seen as ‘incorrect’ and unacceptable. In order to shed light on the norms constructed in the regulation process, I thus concentrate on what is corrected and commented on, by whom, and in what circumstances. In the second part, I consider the scope of acceptability in more detail. I focus on more tacit interlocutor reactions to language than outright corrections and language commenting, that is, embedded repairs, and reformulations and mediation (section 5.2.2), as well as adjustments speakers make to their own language in the form of lexical accommodation (section 5.2.3). My focus on the different regulatory practices is the result of close analysis of the collected material. The aim of the chapter is to consider the construction of the boundaries and the scope of acceptability in the interaction. The chapter explores each regulatory practice in turn.

5.1 Explicit regulation: drawing boundaries of acceptability and