An Approach to Conducting Cross-Language Qualitative Research with People from Multiple Language Groups

Author(s):  
Caroline Elizabeth Fryer
2014 ◽  
Vol 25 (1) ◽  
pp. 134-144 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hudson P. O. Santos ◽  
Amanda M. Black ◽  
Margarete Sandelowski

2021 ◽  
pp. 026765832110449
Author(s):  
Ruth Maria Martinez ◽  
Heather Goad ◽  
Michael Dow

Feature-based approaches to acquisition principally focus on second language (L2) learners’ ability to perceive non-native consonants when the features required are either contrastively present or entirely absent from the first language (L1) grammar. As features may function contrastively or allophonically in the consonant and/or vowel systems of a language, we expand the scope of this research to address whether features that function contrastively in the L1 vowel system can be recombined to yield new vowels in the L2; whether features that play a contrastive role in the L1 consonant system can be reassigned to build new vowels in the L2; and whether L1 allophonic features can be ‘elevated’ to contrastive status in the L2. We examine perception of the oral–nasal contrast in Brazilian Portuguese listeners from French, English, Caribbean Spanish, and non-Caribbean Spanish backgrounds, languages that differ in the status assigned to [nasal] in their vowel systems. An AXB discrimination task revealed that, although all language groups succeeded in perceiving the non-naïve contrast /e/–/ẽ/ due to their previous exposure to Québec French while living in Montréal, Canada, only French and Caribbean Spanish speakers succeeded in discriminating the naïve contrast /i/–/ĩ/. These findings suggest that feature redeployment at first exposure is only possible if the feature is contrastive in the L1 vowel system (French) or if the feature is allophonic but variably occurs in contrastive contexts in the L1 vowel system (Caribbean Spanish). With more exposure to a non-native contrast, however, feature redeployment from consonant to vowel systems was also supported, as was the possibility that allophonic features may be elevated to contrastive status in the L2.


2004 ◽  
Vol 3 (4) ◽  
pp. 16-27 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jenny Hsin-Chun Tsai ◽  
John H. Choe ◽  
Jeanette Mu Chen Lim ◽  
Elizabeth Acorda ◽  
Nadine L. Chan ◽  
...  

2015 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 80-102 ◽  
Author(s):  
Erika C. Piazzoli

This paper considers some methodological implications related to translation in cross-language qualitative research. The paper takes a twofold stance: on the one hand, it argues that, provided the process is carried out with integrity and transparency, translation in cross-language research can be insightful, and can function as a phase of the analysis in itself. On the other hand, ‘interlanguage translation’, that is, the translation of non-native speakers’ utterances in the target language, should be avoided, or at least acknowledged as a limitation of the study. The article draws on a cross-language qualitative research study, conducted partly in Australia and partly in Italy, in the inter-disciplinary field of second language acquisition (SLA) drama education research. The article argues that a multi-approach to equivalence (dynamic, conceptual and dynamic equivalence) may be needed to translate different kinds of texts within the same study, offering a variety of examples to support these claims.


2020 ◽  
Vol ahead-of-print (ahead-of-print) ◽  
Author(s):  
Nurfaradilla Mohamad Nasri ◽  
Nurfarahin Nasri ◽  
Mohamad Asyraf Abd Talib

PurposeCross-language qualitative research has gained momentum worldwide; yet, there is still a lack of consensus to guide researchers in ensuring the trustworthiness of the research. Several methodological dilemmas related to language differences between researchers and participants should be carefully addressed. Therefore, this study aims to (1) review qualitative literature addressing cross-language, (2) produce a list of methodological criteria and recommendations from the reviewed literature and (3) evaluate systematically published cross-language qualitative researches using the list.Design/methodology/approachThis study employed a summative content analysis of 35 published curriculum and pedagogy researches from 2000–2018 that viewed language differences as methodological issue. A list of 20 criteria or recommendations was constructed and used to evaluate the selected researches.FindingsThe findings revealed that majority of the researches lacked understanding of language differences between researchers and participants causing multiple inconsistencies in reporting methodological issues. Failure to address these methodological issues could risk the trustworthiness of the data and the overall rigor of the research.Originality/valueThis study highlights the importance to minimize methodological issues related to language differences. It is hoped that the list of criteria or recommendations proposed by this study could support other cross-language qualitative researchers in overcoming these methodological dilemmas.


2015 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 74-85 ◽  
Author(s):  
Erika C. Piazzoli

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to reflect on reflective practice as a qualitative methodology, and reflection-in-action as a modus operandi to engage with the artistry of cross-language qualitative research. Design/methodology/approach – The author draws on the doctoral research, a cross-language multiple case study aimed at investigating the author’s evolving understanding, as a reflective practitioner, of drama-based pedagogy for teaching Italian as a second language. Findings – A reflective analysis of the author’s tacit decision making during drama improvisation unveiled a clash between covert beliefs and overt attitudes in the author’s practice. In this paper, the author examine this process and highlight the value of translingual writing (writing in two languages) as a method of enquiry that allowed me to become aware of this clash. Research limitations/implications – A limitation of this research is that the nature of this clash of beliefs is confined to the idiosyncrasy of one practitioner. However, the methodological implications are relevant to cross-language qualitative researchers fluent in two (or more) languages. Frequently, translingual researchers focus all writing efforts in one language only, because of the absence of methodological guidelines bridging cross-language research, reflective practice and translingual studies. Practical implications – Strategies to investigate awareness of tacit beliefs in educational practice may help other second language/drama reflective practitioners to better understand their knowing in-action. Originality/value – This paper represents a first step in disseminating knowledge about translingual writing as method, and is of value to all those translingual researchers who are interested in reflective methodologies.


2018 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. 160940691881230 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicole Bergen

The role of the interpreter in cross-language qualitative research warrants methodological consideration at the onset and throughout the research. This study used a narrative approach to portray how two researchers’ epistemological positionings about the interpreter role were negotiated within the practical realities of conducting research. Data were obtained from a semistructured interview with an experienced cross-language researcher and field notes of my subsequent experiences working with interpreters. Findings suggest that the researcher–interpreter relationship is shaped by the epistemological views of the researcher, researcher experience and seniority, study design and resources, and the context in which the research occurs. Understanding how researchers’ views and approaches to working with interpreters evolve across different career stages and adapt to different circumstances can provide new insights to prepare researchers for cross-language research and to promote rigorous qualitative research.


2013 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 86-99 ◽  
Author(s):  
Barbara Fersch

Qualitative research that includes interviews in languages foreign to the researcher(s) has become increasingly common. However, there is surprisingly little reflection on the methodological implications of such research practices. Furthermore, strategies on how to analyse cross- and multi-language interview material are lacking. The aim of this article is to present possible ways of handling these challenges, focusing mainly on analysis. I propose a hermeneutical approach to the issue. First, I will discuss the epistemological/methodological foundations of the approach before proposing some 'tools' to help practically tackle the 'problem' of analysis using the chosen methodological perspective. Rather than ignoring or trying to circumvent the question of foreign language and/or translation, in the proposed approach linguistic questions and questions of translation are the central focus.


2002 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 1-12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bogusia Temple ◽  
Rosalind Edwards

In this article, the authors examine the implications of extending calls for reflexivity in qualitative research generally to cross-language research with interpreters. Drawing on the concept of ‘borders’, they present two research projects to demonstrate the need to locate the interpreter as active in producing research accounts. They extend the concept of ‘border crossing’, relating this to identity politics and the benefits of making the interpreter visible in research.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document