Cover not available
Part of
Responses to Language Varieties: Variability, processes and outcomes
Edited by Alexei Prikhodkine and Dennis R. Preston
[IMPACT: Studies in Language, Culture and Society 39] 2015
► pp. 55–84

Mixing methods in the study of language attitudes

Theory and application

 | University of Vienna
Mixed methods research (MMR) is currently on the rise in the social sciences. This paper provides a theoretical discussion and a practical illustration of MMR in the social psychological study of language attitudes. First, I review perceived obstacles to MMR - in particular, the ‘incompatibility thesis’, whereby quantitative and qualitative methods are assumed to clash epistemologically. I propose an alternative account by which qual and quan research on language attitudes can be integrated on a common theoretical basis that holds attitudes to constitute interactionally processed ‘human epistemological constructs’ (HECs). I apply this approach in MMR on Austrian German, where I integrate a qual analysis of language-attitudinal HECs found in discourse data with a quan speaker evaluation experiment designed to corroborate the qual exegesis.
Published online: 16 December 2015
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/impact.39.03sou
References (88)
References
Ajzen, Icek & Fishbein, Martin. 2005. The influence of attitudes on behavior. In The Handbook of Attitudes, Dolores Albarracín, Blair T. Johnson & Mark P. Zanna (eds), 173-221. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Arendt, Birte. 2011. Laientheoretische Konzeptionen von Sprache und Dialekt am Beispiel des Niederdeutschen: Eine kontextsensitive Analyse von Spracheinstellungsäußerungen sowie ihre methodologische Fundierung Niederdeutsches Wort: Beiträge zur niederdeutschen Philologie 51: 133-162.Google Scholar
Aron, Arthur, Aron, Elaine N. & Coups, Elliot J. 2009. Statistics for Psychology, 5th edn. Upper Saddle River NJ: Pearson.Google Scholar
Bakhtin, Mikhail. 1986[1952-53]. The problem of speech genres. In Speech Genres and Other Late Essays, Vern W. McGee (transl.), Caryl Emerson & Michael Holquist (eds), 60-102. Austin TX: The University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Baumann, Richard. 1992. Performance. In Folklore, Cultural Performances, and Popular Entertainments, Richard Baumann (ed.), 41-49. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Becker, Alton L. 1995. Beyond Translation. Ann Arbor MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Bergmann, Manfred M. (ed.). 2008. Advances in Mixed Methods Research. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Bhaskar, Roy. 1989. Reclaiming Reality: A Critical Introduction to Contemporary Philosophy. London: Verso.Google Scholar
. 1991. Philosophy and the Idea of Freedom. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
. 1997. A Realist Theory of Science. London: Verso.Google Scholar
Blommaert, Jan. 2005. Discourse. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bryman, Alan. 2006. Integrating quantitative and qualitative research: How is it done? Qualitative Research 6(1): 97-113. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2007. Barriers to integrating quantitative and qualitative research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research 1(1): 8-22. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cameron, Deborah. 2001. Working with Spoken Discourse. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Coupland, Nik. 2007. Style: Language Variation and Identity. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Creswell, John W. 2011. Controversies in mixed methods research. In The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research, Norman K. Denzin & Yvonna S. Lincoln (eds), 269-283. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage.Google Scholar
. 2014. Die Entwicklung der Mixed-Methods-Forschung. In Introduction to Mixed Methods, Udo Kuckartz (ed.), 13-26. Wiesbaden: Springer.Google Scholar
Creswell, John W. & Plano Clark, Vicki L. 2011. Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research, 2nd edn. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Creswell, John W. & Zhang, Wanqing. 2009. The application of mixed methods designs to trauma research. Journal of Traumatic Stress 22(6): 612-621.Google Scholar
Denzin, Norman K. & Lincoln, Yvonna S. 2011. Introduction: The discipline and practice of qualitative research. In The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research, Norman K. Denzin & Yvonna S. Lincoln (eds), 1-19. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Dörnyei, Zoltan. 2007. Research Methods in Applied Linguistics. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Dressler, Wolfgang U. & Wodak, Ruth. 1982. Sociophonological methods in the study of sociolinguistic variation in Viennese German. Language in Society 2: 339-370. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eagly, Alice H. & Chaiken, Shelly. 2005. Attitude research in the 21st century: The current state of knowledge. In The Handbook of Attitudes, Dolores Albarracín, Blair T. Johnson & Mark P. Zanna (eds), 743-767. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Ebner, Jakob. 2008. Duden – Österreichisches Deutsch. Mannheim: Dudenverlag.Google Scholar
Eckert, Penelope. 2008. Variation and the indexical field. Journal of Sociolinguistics 12(4): 453–476. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Erickson, Frederick. 1986. Listening and speaking. In Languages and Linguistics, Deborah Tannen & James E. Alatis (eds), 294-319. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Fairclough, Norman. 1992. Discourse and Social Change. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Garfinkel, Harold. 1967. Studies in Ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Garrett, Peter, Coupland, Nik & Williams, Angie. 1999. Evaluating dialect in discourse: Teachers’ and teenagers’ responses to young English speakers in Wales. Language in Society 28: 321-354. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gee, James Paul. 1999. An Introduction to Discourse Analysis. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Gergen, Kenneth J. 2008. On the very idea of social psychology. Social Psychology Quarterly 71(4): 331–337. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Giles, Howard & Coupland, Nik. 1991. Language: Contexts and Consequences. Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
Giles, Howard & Bouchard Ryan, Ellen. 1982. Prolegomena for developing a social psychological theory of language attitudes. In Attitudes Towards Language Variation, Ellen Bouchard Ryan & Howard Giles (eds), 208-223. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Goffman, Erving. 1959. The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. New York NY: Doubleday.Google Scholar
. 1974. Frame Analysis. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
. 1981. Forms of Talk. Philadelphia PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Gumperz, John J. 1982. Discourse strategies. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Himmelfarb, Samuel. 1993. The measurement of attitudes. In The Psychology of Attitudes, Alice H. Eagly & Shelly Chaiken (eds), 23-87. Fort Worth TX: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Google Scholar
Howe, Kenneth R. 2003. Closing Methodological Divides. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Huber, Oswald. 2013. Das psychologische Experiment, 6th edn. Bern: Hans Huber.Google Scholar
Hymes, Dell. 1972. Models of the interaction of language and social life. In Directions in Sociolinguistics, John J. Gumperz & Dell Hymes (eds), 35-71. New York NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston,Google Scholar
Hyrkstedt, Irene & Kalaja, Paula. 1998. Attitudes toward English and its functions in Finland: A discourse-analytic study. World Englishes 17(3): 359-368. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Johnstone, Barbara & Kiesling, Scott F. 2008. Indexicality and experience: Exploring the meanings of /aw/-monophthongization in Pittsburgh. Journal of Sociolinguistics 12(1): 5–33. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kaiser, Imtraud & Ender, Andrea. 2013. Diglossia or dialect–standard continuum in speakers’ awareness and usage: On the categorisation of lectal variation in Austria. In Variation in Language and Language Use, Monika Reif, Justyna A. Robinson & Martin Pütz (eds), 273-298. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Kristeva, Julia. 1986[1966]. Word, dialog and novel. In The Kristeva Reader, Toril Moi (ed.), 34-61. New York NY: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Korzybski, Alfred. 1994[1933]. A non-Aristotelian system and its necessity for rigour in mathematics and physics. In Science and Sanity, 5th edn, 747-761. Fort Worth TX: Institute of General Semantics.Google Scholar
Kuckartz, Udo. 2014. Mixed Methods. Wiesbaden: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lambert, Wallace E., Hodgson, Richard, Gardner, Robert C. & Fillenbaum, Samuel. 1960. Evaluational reactions to spoken languages. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 60(1): 44-51. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
LaPiere, Richard T. 1934. Attitudes vs. actions. Social Forces 13(2): 230-237. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lenz, Alexandra N. & Glauninger, Manfred M. (eds). 2015. Standarddeutsch im 21. Jahrhundert [Wiener Arbeiten zur Linguistik 1]. Vienna: Vienna University Press.Google Scholar
Liebscher, Grit & Dailey-O’Cain, Jennifer. 2009. Language attitudes in interaction. Journal of Sociolinguistics 13(2): 195-222. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Meinefeld, Werner. 1988. Einstellung. In Handwörterbuch der Psychologie, 4th edn, Roland Asanger & Gerd Wenninger (eds), 120-126. Munich: PVU.Google Scholar
Miles, Matthew B. & Huberman, A. Michael. 1994. Qualitative Data Analysis, 2nd edn. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Miles, Matthew B., Huberman, A. Michael & Saldana, Johnny. 2014. Qualitative Data Analysis, 3rd edn. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Moosmüller, Sylvia. 1988. Dialekt ist nicht gleich Dialekt: Spracheinschätzung in Wien. Wiener Linguistische Gazette 40-41: 55-80.Google Scholar
. 1991. Hochsprache und Dialekt in Österreich. Vienna: Böhlau.Google Scholar
Morgan, David L. 2007. Paradigms lost and pragmatism regained: Methodological implications of combining qualitative and quantitative methods. Journal of Mixed Methods Research 1(1):48-76. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2014. Integrating Qualitative and Quantitative Methods. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Ortega y Gasset, José. 1959. The difficulty of reading, Clarence E. Parmenter (transl.). Diogenes 7(28):1-17. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Osgood, Charles E., Suci, George J. & Tannenbaum, Percy H. 1957. The Measurement of Meaning. Urbana IL: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Potter, Jonathan. 1998. Discursive social psychology: From attitudes to evaluative practices. European Review of Social Psychology 9(1): 233-266. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Potter, Jonathan & Wetherell, Margaret. 1987. Discourse and Social Psychology. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Raskin, Jonathan D. 2002. Constructivism in psychology: Personal construct psychology, radical constructivism, and social constructionism. In Jonathan D. Raskin & Sara K. Bridges (eds) Studies in Meaning, 1-25. New York NY: Pace University Press.Google Scholar
Richards, Lyn. 2005. Handling Qualitative Data. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Saxe, John Godfrey & Galdone, Paul. 1963. The Blind Men and the Elephant. New York NY: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Scheuringer, Hermann. 1997. Sprachvarietäten in Österreich. In Varietäten des Deutschen, Gerhard Stickel (ed.), 332-335. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Schiffrin, Deborah. 1994. Approaches to Discourse. Malden MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
. 2002. Mother and friends in a Holocaust life story. Language in Society 31(3): 309-353. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2014. Discourse. In An Introduction to Language and Linguistics, 2nd edn, Ralph W. Fasold & Jeff Connor-Linton (eds), 183-215. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Schilling, Natalie. 2013. Investigating stylistic variation. In The Handbook of Language Variation and Change, 2nd edn, Jack K. Chambers & Natalie Schilling (eds), 327-349. Malden MA: Wiley-Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schilling-Estes, Natalie. 2004. Constructing ethnicity in interaction. Journal of Sociolinguistics 8(2):163-195. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Scollon, Ron. 2003. The dialogist in a positivist world: Theory in the social sciences and the humanities at the end of the twentieth century. Social Semiotics 13(1):71-88. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Scollon, Ron & Scollon, Suzie Wong. 2004. Nexus Analysis. New York NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Soukup, Barbara. 2009. Dialect Use as Interaction Strategy. Vienna: Braumüller.Google Scholar
. 2011. Austrian listeners’ perceptions of standard-dialect style-shifting: An empirical approach. Journal of Sociolinguistics 15(3): 347-365. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013a. The measurement of ‘language attitudes’: A reappraisal from a constructionist perspective. In Language (De)standardisation in Late Modern Europe, 251-266. Oslo: Novus.Google Scholar
. 2013b. On matching speaker (dis)guises: Revisiting a methodological tradition. In Language (De)standardisation in Late Modern Europe, Stefan Grondelaers & Tore Kristiansen (eds), 267-285. Oslo: Novus.Google Scholar
. 2014. Konstruktivismus trifft auf Methodik in der Spracheinstellungsforschung: Theorie, Daten, Fazit. In Sprechen über Sprache, Christina Cuonz & Rebekka Studler (eds), 143-168.Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
Steinegger, Guido. 1998. Sprachgebrauch und Sprachbeurteilung in Österreich und Südtirol. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Tannen, Deborah. 1989. Talking Voices. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Tannen, Deborah & Wallat, Cynthia. 1993. Interactive frames and knowledge schemas in interaction: Examples from a medical examination/ interview. In Framing in discourse, Deborah Tannen (ed.), 57-76. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Tashakkori, Abbas & Creswell, John W. 2007. Editorial: The new era of mixed methods. Journal of Mixed Methods Research 1(1): 3-7. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tashakkori, Abbas & Teddlie, Charles (eds) 2010. The SAGE Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social & Behavioral Research 2nd edn. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Teddlie, Charles & Tashakkori, Abbas. 2010. Overview of contemporary issues in mixed methods research. In Tashakkori & Teddlie (eds), 1-41. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tophinke, Doris & Ziegler, Evelyn. 2006. “Aber bitte im Kontext!“ Neue Perspektiven der dialektologischen Einstellungsforschung. Osnabrücker Beiträge zur Sprachtheorie 1: 205-224.Google Scholar
Vygotsky, Lev S. 1978. Mind in Society. Michael Cole, Vera John-Steiner, Sylvia Scribner & Ellen Souberman (eds). Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Widdowson, Henry G. 2004. Text, Context, Pretext. Malden MA: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wiesinger, Peter. 2006. Das österreichische Deutsch in Gegenwart und Geschichte. Vienna: LIT.Google Scholar
Cited by (6)

Cited by six other publications

Truan, Naomi & Esther Jahns
2024. Introduction: Language ideologies—again? New insights from a flourishing field. European Journal of Applied Linguistics 12:1 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Hoffmeister, Toke
2021. Gerd Antos, Thomas Niehr, Jürgen Spitzmüller (Hg.). 2019. Handbuch Sprache im Urteil der Öffentlichkeit (Sprache und Wissen 10). Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter. 471 S.. Zeitschrift für Rezensionen zur germanistischen Sprachwissenschaft 13:1-2 ► pp. 37 ff. DOI logo
Prikhodkine, Alexei
2021. Attitudes to accents. In Pragmatics of Accents [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 327], ► pp. 19 ff. DOI logo
Kristiansen, Tore
2020. Methods in language-attitudes research. In Handbook of Pragmatics [Handbook of Pragmatics, ], ► pp. 3 ff. DOI logo
Kristiansen, Tore
2022. Methods in language-attitudes research. In Handbook of Pragmatics [Handbook of Pragmatics, ], ► pp. 1702 ff. DOI logo
Soukup, Barbara
2020. Survey area selection in Variationist Linguistic Landscape Study (VaLLS). Linguistic Landscape. An international journal 6:1 ► pp. 52 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 8 january 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.