Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1
World Englishes &
(Linguistic Landscape):
A case study of English used on signs in tourist attractions in
Wipapan NGAMPRAMUAN2nd year PhD candidate in Applied Linguistics
School of English, The University of Nottingham
2
My presentation
World Englishes (& Linguistic Landscape)
Research aims & research questions
Research Methodology
Preliminary results
Contribution to Thailand
3
World EnglishesEnglish as a Lingua Franca (ELF)
English as an International Language
- varieties of English around the world
- based on social and cultural contexts
- Influenced by multicultural backgrounds, sociolinguistic histories, and contexts of function on the use of English
Bamgbose, A. (2001) ‘World Englishes and Globalization’, World Englishes, vol. 20, no.3, pp. 357-363
4
Kachru’s three concentric circle model
Source: English as a global language by Crystal (2003: 61)Crystal. D. (2003) English as a Global Language. 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
5
Linguistic Landscape
Landry and Bourhis (1997: 25)Landry, R. and Bourhis, R.Y. (1997) Linguistic Landscape and Ethnolinguistic Vitality:
An Empirical Study. Journal of Language and Social Psychology (16), pp. 23-49
‘The language of public road signs, advertising billboards, street names, place names, commercial shop signs, and public signs on government buildings combines to form the linguistic landscapes of a given territory, region, or urban agglomeration’
6
Previous Literature into LL in Thailand
▪ Huebner, T. (2006) Bangkok’s Linguistic Landscapes: Environment Print, Codemixing and Language Change, International Journal of Multilingualism, vol. 3, no.1, pp. 31- 51.
▪ Backhaus, P. (2007) Linguistic Landscapes: A Comparative Study of Urban Multilingualism in Tokyo, Clevedon, Multilingual Matters.
7
Research aims1) To discover the patterns of Thai English
▪Formulaic language
‘any sequence of two or more words that are
perceived to be more constrained than usual in
their co-occurrence’ (Hudson & Wiktorsson,
2009: 81)
8
Research aims
2) To point out the features of Thai English in
comparison with other Englishes especially
Asian Englishes such as Chinese English,
Singaporean English, Malaysian English and
Japanese English
9
Research aims
3) To disclose cultural identities attached to
the English language used by Thai people
10
Research Methodology
● Qualitative
▪ Ethnographic fieldwork
○ Observations
○ Interviews
Thai people: shop owners, sign makers,
government offers, tourists
International visitors
11
Research Methodology
● Qualitative
▪ Descriptive Analysis & Theoretical frameworks
○ World Englishes/ English as a lingua franca
○ Linguistic Landscape○ Intercultural communication
12
Research Methodology
● Quantitative
▪ A Corpus of English used on signs in tourist
attractions in Thailand
Corpus linguistics uses large collections of both
spoken and written natural texts that are stored on computers
to explore different questions about language use, patterns of
usage by mainly focusing on a high degree of recurrence of the
individual items that are being analysed. (Reppen and Simpson,
2002; Adolphs, 2008)
13
Data collection Periods: 1) December 2009, 2) June 2010,
3) May – June 2011
25 areas in 8 provinces: Bangkok, Ayutthaya, Sukhothai,
Rachaburi, Tak, Chon Buri (Pattaya), Singburi,
Kanchanaburi, Samut Sakorn
Attractions: temples, markets, shopping areas, national
parks and beaches 1,227 signs
14
Data Categorisation
● Official vs. commercial signs
● Information vs. advertising
●Permanent vs. non-permanent signs
15
Preliminary Results
● Quantitative analysis
Result from the corpus
● Qualitative analysis
Theoretical frameworks from preceding
literature
16
Data : 1,227 English & English dominant signs
Corpus tool: WordSmith
Size : 13, 625 running words
Preliminary results
13
18
Preliminary Results
There are two broad categories of Thai English:
1. Grammatical features ○ misspelling / typing errors○ punctuation marks & capitalisation○ word order e.g. adjective and noun modification○ parts of speech e.g. adverb, adjective, noun○ other grammatical related issues
2. Semantic features○ direct translation○ different spelling systems (of the same word)○ creativity○ word choices○ other sociocultural related backgrounds
19
Grammatical features: misspelling/ typo
20
Semantic features
CIP = ???
Specific socio-cultural knowledge
22
22
Contribution to Thailand
To raise Thai people’s awareness when using English in certain contexts that can lead to communicative breakdown
To be used as a resource for developing educational strategies and teaching materials to help Thai learners recognise the patterns of English language used in natural settings that can lead to successful communication or failure of communication
To act as guidance for international visitors to Thailand to understand more about Thai culture and Thai society through the English language used by Thai people
23
Conclusion
To have a better understanding of a variety of English in Thailand, it is necessary to take contexts surrounded the displayed language into account.
It appears that Thai English closely relates to unique characteristics of Thai people, Thai language, Thai culture, Thai society and the main religion, Buddhism.
To lessen communication gaps, Thai people should be aware of using English in certain contexts, while international tourists should be aware of the specific social and cultural values and norms attached to the language used.
ReferencesAdolphs, S. (2008) Corpus and Context: Investigating Pragmatic Functions in Spoken Discourse, Amsterdam, John Benjamins.
Bamgbose, A. (2001) ‘World Englishes and Globalization’, World Englishes, vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 357-363.
Backhaus, P. (2007) Linguistic Landscapes: A Comparative Study of Urban Multilingualism in Tokyo, Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Crystal. D. (2003) English as a Global Language (2nd edn.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hudson, J., Wiktorsson, M. (2009) ‘Formulaic language and the relater category – the case of about’ in Corrigan, R., Moravcsik, E.A., Ouali, H., Wheatley, K.M. (eds.), Formulaic Language Volume 1: Distribution and Historical Change, Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Huebner, T. (2006) ‘Bangkok’s Linguist Landscapes: Environment Print, Codemixing and Language Change’, International Journal of Multilingualism, vol. 3, no.1, pp. 31- 51.
Jewitt, C. (ed.)(2009) The Routledge Handbook of Multimodal Analysis, London: Routledge.
Kachru, B.B. (1989) ‘Teaching World Englishes’, Indian Journal of Applied Linguistics, vol. 15, no.1, pp. 85-95.
Kress, G. and Van Leeuwen, T. (2001) Multimodal Discourse: the Modes and Media of Contemporary Communication, London: Arnold.
Landry, R and Bourhis, R.Y. (1997) ‘Linguistic Landscape and Ethnolinguistic Vitality: An Empirical Study’, Journal of Language and Social Psychology, vol. 16, pp. 23-49.
Reppen, R., Simpson, R. (2002) ‘Corpus Linguistics’ in Schmitt, N. (ed.) An Introduction to Applied Linguistics, London, Arnold.
Scollon, R. and Scollon, S.W. (2003). Discourses in Place: Language in the Material World, London: Routledge.
Thomas, J. (1983) ‘Cross-Cultural Pragmatic Failure’, Applied Linguistics, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 91-112.24
25
Acknowledgement
Supervisors:Professor Ronald Carter & Professor Svenja AdolphsSchool of English, The University of Nottingham, UK
Source of funding:Office of the Higher Education Commission
TSAC 2012 Committee
