Qualitative Versus Quantitative Research

. . Seeboorapha

Description

Qualitative Versus Quantitative Research Comparison Dimension Qualitative Research Quantitative Research Types of questions Sample size Information per respondent Administration Type of analysis Hardware Ability to replicate Training of the researcher Type of research Probing Small Much Requires interviewer with special skills Subjective, Interpretive Tape recorders, projection devices, videos, pictures, discussion guides Low Psychology, sociology, social psychology, consumer behavior, marketing, marketing research Exploratory Nonprobing Large Varies Fewer special skills required Statistical, summarization Questionnaires, computers, printouts High Statistics, decision models, decision support systems, computer programming, marketing, marketing research Descriptive or causal

• ideas by importance
• completion techniques construction techniques
• unstructured discussion
• quantitative techniques
• observation observation
• observation to observation
• focus groups
• moderator
• ideas
• group

Sujets

• Technique
• Construction
• Observation
• Discussion
• Moderator
• Importance

Informations

• Publié par: olli0
• Nombre de lectures: 17
• Langue: English

Extrait

A critique of some common assumptions in German dialect didactics
Winifred V. Davies

Introduction
This paper was inspired by earlier research amongst teachers in parts of central
Germany, which established that the informants had a relatively low level of
sociolinguistic awareness (Davies in press, a, b). It has also been influenced by
the work of British linguists like Romy Clark, Norman Fairclough, Roz Ivanic
and Marilyn Martin-Jones, who have contributed a great deal to the debate
about language awareness in language education, and have developed the
concept of „critical language awareness‟ (CLA) (see, for example, Fairclough
1992). Having investigated the sociolinguistic awareness of the practitioners, I
decided to turn my attention to the theorists and policy-makers and examine to
what extent their pronouncements and prescriptions are based upon what
advocates of CLA would regard as contentious theoretical assumptions about
language, or have been influenced by „critical‟ theories of language and
language education. The material which will be examined comes from writings
by academics and from school curricula in Baden-Württemberg and Rheinland-
Pfalz. I shall discuss a selection of what I consider to be contentious
assumptions about language and linguistic variation, explaining why I think
they are so.
Discussion
Assumption 1: Dialect is a problem
1 Regional non-standard dialects are often referred to as a „problem‟. Two
examples serve to illustrate this: (i) Besch et al. (1983) contains two articles:
„Probleme des Dialektsprechers beim Erwerb der deutschen Standardsprache‟
and „Problems beim Fremdsprachenerwerb‟. Ironically, in
1
the latter article Viereck concludes that sometimes dialect-speakers are at an
advantage when learning a foreign language, although the title gives a very
different impression. (ii) In the Lehrplan Deutsch. Gymnasium. Rheinland-
Pfalz. 1984, we find that one of the topics from which the tenth class has to
choose is „Der deutsche Sprachraum und die sich daraus ergebenden
Probleme‟ (emphasis added). Recently there have been some attempts to
replace this concept with the notion of „Dialekt als Chance‟, e.g. Klotz / Sieber
write:
In den siebziger Jahren standen die Diskussionen um Dialektdidaktik weitgehend unter
der Forderung, die Nachteile, welche Dialektsprecher gegenüber den anderen Schülern
hätten, mit unterrichtlichen Arrangements zu kompensieren bis hin zur radikalen
Forderung der “Ersetzung des Dialekts durch die Einheitssprache” [...]. Demgegenüber
sind in die neuere Diskussion Aspekte hinzugekommen, die Dialektvoraussetzungen nicht
einfach negativ als Handicap bestimmen, sondern auch nach Chancen und
Bildungsmöglichkeiten suchen, die mit der Verfügungskompetenz über dialektale Register
verbunden sind [...] (1993: 8).
Non-standard dialect is to be seen as a resource rather than as a problem.
However, both views are more problematic than may at first appear.
The first view, dialect as a problem, does not always differentiate clearly
between dialect as a social problem and dialect as a linguistic problem. Neither
does it make clear that research has shown that dialect is not problematic for all
speakers in the same way: as Rosenberg points out: „Nicht, ob jemand Dialekt
spricht ist also das Problem, sondern ob jemand nur (oder fast nur) Dialekt
spricht!‟ (1993: 24).
It has often been assumed that speakers of regional non-standard varieties have
problems mastering standard German, especially its written realisation, because
of interference from the dialect: there is some truth in that and practitioners
2
ought to be aware of the potential difficulties faced by dialect-speakers, but
some of the problems are not peculiar to them. According to Ammon, „Die
Einheitssprache läßt sich unmittelbarer und leichter in die geschriebene Sprache
umsetzen‟ (1982: 36), but Barbour (1987: 234) shows that not even the speech
of highly educated and socially successful middle-class speakers is synonymous
with standard written German. Rosenberg‟s work on Berlin is also relevant in
this context. He found that standard-speaking pupils from Hanover as well as
dialect-speaking Berlin pupils made mistakes in a test dictation and he
concluded that „Der Bereich, der unter den Verschlußlauten am häufigsten zu
Fehlern führt, ist die Stimmhaftigkeitskorrelation […]. Diese Schwierigkeiten
sind allgemeiner umgangssprachlicher Natur‟ (1986: 222). We must therefore
differentiate between errors in written German that are due to interference from
regional non-standard dialects and those that are due to interference from
spoken forms of German.
The negative evaluation of non-standard linguistic varieties by some sections of
German society can have repercussions for speakers of those varieties. Often
attempts are made to present these evaluations as linguistic ones, which seems
to lend them an air of neutrality, i.e. it has been argued that dialect should be
eradicated in order to facilitate the learning of standard German. The view that
dialect should be eradicated is not voiced very often today, but the use of non-
standard varieties is still acceptable only in certain situations, not those which
2are prestigious: formal, public, official . The use of non-standard dialect in such
situations (including school) can still bring sanctions with it, so pupils quickly
learn (and are taught) that language varies and that certain varieties are more
desirable than others. This is usually explained in terms of the demands of
appropriacy, but the power relations between different varieties and their
speakers are rarely discussed, and the reason quoted most often to account for
3
the convention of using standard German in public/formal/official situations is
its greater communicative radius, i.e. its greater intelligibility. In my opinion,
however, this is a contestable notion and I shall return to it later.
It must be stressed that I am not arguing that children whose vernacular is a
regional non-standard dialect never face problems, but we have to be far more
specific when describing those problems. As Wagner (1987: 131) says,
referring to a study in Bavaria, there is no evidence that speakers of non-
standard dialect per se have problems at school: a correlation between use of a
non-t and a low mark in German was only established for pupils
who used broad non-standard dialect forms even in formal situations.
Moreover, Viereck (1983: 1494-5) shows that speakers of some Austrian non-
standard dialects could be at an advantage when learning English because of
certain phonological / phonetic similarities, and we know that all pupils have
problems learning to write standard German (Barbour 1987). Speakers of
regional non-standard dialects may face problems, but it must be made clearer
that many of these problems are social problems, not linguistic problems; they
are problems of attitudes, which are products of specific historical and social
contexts. It is not therefore legitimate, in my opinion, to present dialect-
speakers as people with problems per se.
The concept of „Dialekt als Chance‟ occurs relatively often in the recent
academic literature. It usually means two things: (i) regional non-standard
dialect as a means of expressing one‟s identity: it gives information about a
person‟s geographical and social background and can be used to show
solidarity with others from the same background; (ii) multilingualism as a
valuable resource: speakers of a regional non-standard dialect have an
additional register, which is more appropriate in some situations than the
standard (cf. Bücherl 1993: 72-6). It is usually assumed that the speaker‟s
4
repertoire also includes standard. This is a rather one-sided view of „Dialekt als
Chance‟ since there is never any suggestion that monoglot speakers of standard
German should acquire a non-standard dialect in order to expand their
repertoires.
Assumption 2: Mutual intelligibility is only secured by means of standard
German
This is frequently cited as a reason why people need to learn standard German,
e.g. by Bayer:
Die Fähigkeit zum verständlichen, präzisen und situationsangemessenen expliziten
Ausdruck von Gedanken und zu entsprechendem Verstehen ist eine der Voraussetzungen
für die Teilnahme an politischen und kulturellen Prozessen, die in einem demokratischen
Staat unabdingbar notwendig ist, und nicht zuletzt auch für die sprachliche Bewältigung
einer Vielzahl alltäglicher Situationen und für berufliches Fortkommen.
Eine überregionale, syntaktisch und semantisch ausgebaute Standardsprache ist
Voraussetzung für die in einem pluralistischen demokratischen Staat notwendige Kritik
und Verständigung zwischen den einzelnen Gruppierungen (Altersgruppen, Parteien,
Verbänden, usw.).
Wenn es auch außer Zweifel steht, daß Dialekte, Schicht- und Gruppensprachen v.a.
wichtige emotionale und beziehungsstiftende Funktionen haben und der Standardsprache
in speziellen Teilbereichen sogar überlegen sein können, so kann unter demokratischer