This chapter is begins with a set of research questions for the present study, which is then followed by a description of the data used in the study, and finally by what methods are used in the analysis of this data.
3.1 Research questions
The questions that are being sought here are to try and define what ideological concepts and values are being attached to the terms plurilingualism and multilingualism. The reason for this is to try and make the power relations and possible struggles visible in the discussions related to linguistic policies in the EU, and perhaps to get a view of any other kinds of struggles related to the language questions. The reason is that according to CDA theory struggles are often the site where power relations are made visible. The research questions already outlined in the introduction are repeated again for
convenience:
· To find out what kind of ideological concepts are attached to the termsplurilingualism andmultilingualism in the material.
· To see if any power relations or struggles are made visible in the use of these terms.
· To see how plurilingualism relates to the political, economic and ideological struggles within EU and Europe at the moment.
These research questions are intentionally left quite open, so that they will not exclude anything important that comes up from the material. However, they also narrow down the inquiry to focus on plurilingualism from political, economical and ideological viewpoints. Because of the method of analysis the ideological side will probably have more representation over the others, but on the other hand that will also allow for greater accuracy and detail in describing the ideological ties to these questions.
3.2 Data
The material for the present study consists of 22 supporting studies for theFrom linguistic diversity to plurilingual education: Guide for the Development of Language Education Policies in Europe. The material was chosen because at the time this study was begun the Guide was the latest official document related to language education policy on the EU level, and because education policy seemed like a good area for an aspiring teacher to study. Of the main Guide there were two versions, of which the full version was used for the present study instead of the shorter executive version. First, the Guide and all the supporting studies were downloaded from the Council of Europe homepage under the language unit (http://www.coe.int/lang) on April 25 in 2012. All the texts were included in the study, so the choices about what to include should reflect the opinions of the organization and not the researcher.
Later on it became apparent that the amount of data to be analysed was too large for the present study, so it had to be narrowed down in order for the study to be ever completed.
The main focus was shifted to the supporting studies, as the initial work had shown that
background, but it still influences the study because it is the one link that brings all the support studies together.
3.3 Analytical Method
The method for the present study is that of CDA as used by Fairclough. However some methods from nexus analysis and Discourse-Historical Approach are used to
complement it. As stated above, the main method of the study is Fairclough’s three-stage method of CDA. This is supplemented by concepts and additional theoretical tools from Nexus analysis by Scollon&Scollon (2004), and DHA by Wodak (2009). More specifically, the concept of nexus is borrowed from its namesake analysis method, and which is then applied to plurilingualism. In a sense plurilingualism is viewed as a nexus point, which both influences and is influenced by many various others, and the first part of the task is just simply name these other influences. From DHA the main contribution is the use of historical continuity, especially as a good excuse for me to draw examples and references from further back in history.
Another thing borrowed from Nexus analysis (Scollon 2004) to the method is the idea to first engage the nexus of practice, or in other words to identify the salient parts of the text is used. At first the main goal is not to find answers, but to find questions. As Scollon (2004:143-144) states, finding good questions is more important than trying to find out the answers right away. Secondly, the Guide and the supporting studies were read in order to get an overall view of each one, and then all the paragraphs containing direct or obviously indirect references to multilingualism were copied onto a separate file. All the paragraphs were kept under headings denoting which text they came from.
This should allow for the analysis to be focused, while also maintaining clear overall view on the matter, or the big picture.
The material also had to be narrowed down in order to focus only on the question at hand. This was done by cutting out the paragraphs from the texts that specifically dealt with multilingualism and leaving the rest of the text outside the analysis, unless a specific reason requires it to be included. After the first round these pieces of text were then grouped according to any common features discovered. In the third phase of the analysis, the paragraphs were regrouped according to themes or underlying discourses that have surfaced in the first parts of analysis. This was the final part of the present study, and text references were grouped in order to support any findings or arguments that are made from the data.
After the data had been narrowed down, I used what Tischer et al (2000:153-154) describes as Fairglough’s method. It consists of three phases: description, interpretation and explanation. In the description phase the analyst takes the text apart into small pieces and analyses the text's syntax, metaphors and rhetorical devices. In the
interpretation phase the analyst maps out how the text constructs and displays power relations. In the explanation phase the analyst describes the broader social currents and ideologies that have affected the writer of the text. Fairclough (1992:73) also describes the concept behind his method with another three-point definition of discourse. It is divided into text, discourse practices and social practices, where each includes the former. Thus discourse practices encompass texts, while social practices include both.
Text is used for any recorded events of communication, while discourse practices means
the established ways of using texts in a society, and social practices include both use of text and other social relations. Out of these the analysis of text is the starting point, but the goal of analysis is especially to find out how discourse practices both shape and display existing social practices. For example, the assumed reason of these texts is to alter the linguistic reality of schools, and through that indirectly the entire society to have values that will be following chapter will describe in more detail.