Negotiating Lingua Francas: Complexity Theories Approaches to the Interrelationships Between Saudis' Perceptions of English and Their Reported Practices of English

Copyright © 2020 Dr. Shahinaz Bukhari.

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be used or reproduced by any means, graphic, electronic, or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, taping or by any information storage retrieval system without the written permission of the author except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical articles and reviews.

iUniverse

1663 Liberty Drive

Bloomington, IN 47403

www.iuniverse.com

1-800-Authors (1-800-288-4677)

Because of the dynamic nature of the Internet, any web addresses or links contained in this book may have changed since publication and may no longer be valid. The views expressed in this work are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher, and the publisher hereby disclaims any responsibility for them.

Any people depicted in stock imagery provided by Getty Images are models, and such images are being used for illustrative purposes only.

Certain stock imagery © Getty Images.

ISBN: 978-1-6632-0197-3 (sc)

ISBN: 978-1-6632-0199-7 (hc)

ISBN: 978-1-6632-0198-0 (e)

Library of Congress Control Number: 2020913475

iUniverse rev. date: 07/27/2020

ABSTRACT

The extensive use of English in Saudi Arabia has inspired some studies to describe so-called ‘Saudi English’. While these fruitful contributions have documented the linguistic features of this phenomenon, they have not taken into account the other dimensions in communication that interact with the linguistic dimension. This partialist approach could be part of a wider trend in the field of linguistics, with some researchers seeking generalisable findings and treating emergent languages as fixed systems of forms that can be researched in isolation. To open investigations of English in Saudi Arabia to insights beyond reductionism and variationism, this exploratory study adapts a holistic approach and a position inspired by complexity theory. This study’s large-scale survey and interviews aimed to explore Saudis’ (in)tolerance towards misalignment with standard English and how their positions relate to their reported language practices, beliefs, attitudes, motives, identity management, and ideologies. The statistical tests display significant interrelationships among all these parts. Overall, the findings reveal that Saudis’ positive attitude towards the spread of English is enhanced by their international endeavours and willingness to play the role of transcultural negotiators, albeit not at expense of their non-negotiable Islamic identification. Prioritising Arabic over English enhances participants’ tendency to transfer impressions from Arabic as a lingua franca to perceptions of English as a lingua franca. Participants’ appreciation of standard Arabic in pedagogical settings aligns with their appreciation of standard English in pedagogical settings. However, participants’ contextual(ised) tolerance towards misalignment with standard and native English usages is developed by their experiences with lingua franca communications. In favour of Islamic Saudi Arabian identification, participants’ reported use of English in locally informal settings matched, with varying degrees, the linguistic description of so-called ‘Saudi English’. As empirical evidence of this study displays, the regularity of ‘Saudi English’ language patterns is a by-product of repeated practices with religious, sociocultural, sociolinguistic, and translingual justifications. In favour of contextual performativity and adaptation, participants’ reported use of English in international, transcultural, and multi-religion settings indicates openness to negotiation. This sensitivity to change suggests inadequacy of the label ‘Saudi English’ and a need to go beyond variationist approaches when seeking to understand language practices and perceptions. This study calls for the provision of a pedagogical space to address linguistic, cultural, functional, and contextual diversities of transcultural communication in English.

Table of Contents

Acknowledgements

Abbreviations

Chapter 1:   Introduction

1.1   Starting point

1.1.1   Questioning orthodox assumptions

1.1.2   Going beyond variationist perspectives

1.1.3   Relevance of complexity theory to the present study

1.2   Complex research problem

1.2.1   English within the complexity of the Saudi context

1.2.2   Circle of blame

1.3   Literature gap

1.4   Research purposes, questions, objectives, and significance

1.5   Structure of the thesis

Chapter 2:   Complexity theory approach to practices of English

2.1   Introduction

2.2   Definitions, conceptualisations, and approaches

2.2.1   Definitions within language contact and communication perspectives

2.2.2   Conceptualisations within usage-base, language contact, emergent grammar, multilingualism, and accommodation frameworks

2.2.3   Approaching ELF use as a complex social practice

2.3   ELF phenomena in relation to complex adaptive systems

2.3.1   Linguistic conformity vs translanguaging

2.3.2   Correctness vs contextual co-adaptation

2.3.3   ENL linguistic competence vs situated performativity

2.3.4   ENL cultural knowledge vs transcultural awareness

2.3.5   Identity- free language vs identity-processed languaging

2.4   Language patterns in ELF

2.4.1   Relevance of language patterns to the present study

2.4.2   ‘Saudi English’ variants

2.4.3   Sensitivity of language patterns to change

2.5   Summary:

Chapter 3:   Complexity theory approach to perceptions of English

3.1   Introduction

3.2   Conceptualisation of ‘perception’

3.3   Characterising dimensions and analysing overlaps

3.3.1   Travelling of beliefs and attitudes in disguise

3.3.2   Common sense and ‘nativespeakerism’ in non-linear relations

3.3.3   Negotiation of multiple or contradictory ideologies

3.3.4   Multilinguals’ (temporal) motivations

3.3.5   Multiple memberships and interactive identity management

3.4   Summary

Chapter 4:   Complexity     theory-inspired methodology

4.1   Introduction

4.2   Relevance of complexity theory paradigm to the methodology of the present study

4.3   Appropriateness of mixed-method approaches to the present study and reliability issues

4.4   Sequential exploratory research design

4.4.1   Participants variability as a resource for complexity-informed research

4.4.2   Multiphase sampling: ‘convenience’, ‘snowball’, and ‘confirming and disconfirming’ techniques

4.4.3   First phase: Mixed-method survey

4.4.4   Second phase: follow-up qualitative interviews

4.5   Compensation of limitations

4.6   Field Work

4.6.1   Ethical considerations

4.6.2   Pilot study and modifications

4.6.3   Main Study

4.6.4   Consultations on interpretations of interview utterances

4.6.5   Emergence of sensitivity signs

Chapter 5:   Mixed-method survey     results and findings     (interrelationships among     perceptions of English, language     judgments, and context)

5.1   Introduction

5.2   Statistical considerations

5.2.1   Preparing data for analysis

5.2.2   Justifications for statistical tests and reliability issues

5.3   Respondents’ background

5.4   Results and findings

5.4.1   Perceived functions of English

5.4.2   Extent of tolerance towards misalignment with StE models

5.4.3   Beliefs and attitudes in relation to perceived language use

5.4.4   Motives in relation to language perceptions and judgments

5.4.5   Identity in relation to language perceptions and judgments

5.4.6   Relationship between context and language judgment

5.4.7   Respondents’ needs in ELT linguistic, communicative, and cultural dimensions

5.4.8   Respondents’ additional comments

5.5   Discussion

5.6   Overall findings of the survey study

Chapter 6:   Interview Results     and Findings (Patterns     and interrelationships     among reported usages,     perceptions, and context)

6.1   Introduction

6.2   Preparing data for analysis

6.2.1   Participants

6.2.2   Data transcription and translation

6.2.3   Data analysis methods and procedures

6.3   Results and findings

6.3.1   Patterns in complex adaptive systems

6.3.2   Interactions among language adjustments, perceptions, and contexts

6.4   Overall findings of the interviews

Chapter 7:   Conclusion

7.1   Introduction

7.2   Research rational

7.3   Theoretical framework

7.4   The study

7.4.1   Research questions

7.4.2   Methodology

7.4.3   Research findings in relation to research questions

7.5   Limitations and avenues for future research

7.6   Implications and implementations

Appendices

List of references

Table of Tables

Table 1. Mean values of overall responses

Table 2. Respondent groups based on occupation

Table 3. Gender

Table 4. Age

Table 5. Occupation

Table 6. Last academic degree

Table 7. Working experience

Table 8. Perceived knowledge of ELF field

Table 9. Frequency of using English

Table 10. Current Interlocutors

Table 11. Current interlocutors based on occupation

Table 12. Domains of English use

Table 13. Extent of tolerance towards misalignment with StE models

Table 14. Opinions about the spread of English

Table 15. Labelling of one’s own English

Table 16. Qualitative descriptions of one’s own English

Table 17. Relationship between self-description of one’s own English and one’s (in)tolerance towards ELF variants

Table 18. Perceptions of English standardisation vs. perceptions of English linguistic diversities

Table 19. Relationship between explicit rejection of language standardisation and implicit tolerance towards using a mixture of different Englishes

Table 20. Purposes of using English

Table 21. Relationship between the lack of a target nation and lacking/neutral interest in producing native-like English

Table 22. Relationship between (in)tolerance towards missing the exclamation mark and perceptions of ENL accents

Table 23. Relationship between perceptions of ENL accents and perceptions of ENL cultural-bound expressions

Table 24. Purposes of using English based on occupation

Table 25. Primary goals of learning/using English

Table 26. English as an identity marker

Table 27. Relationship between self-description of one’s own English and one’s identity projection on English

Table 28. Relationship between one’s identity projection on English and one’s (in)tolerance towards ELF variants

Table 29. Relationship between the lack of a target nation and linguacultural identity projection

Table 30. Relationship between one’s identity projection and one’s target of proficiency in English

Table 31. Relationship between willingness to project linguacultural identity and lacking/neutral interest in producing native-like English

Table 32. Preferable ELT teacher group based on occupation

Table 33. Desires and (conditional) preferences for native English ELT teachers

Table 35. Criteria of language judgment in international non-pedagogical settings

Table 36. Priorities of skills in teaching/learning settings

Table 37. Opinions about standard-based English tests

Table 38. Doubts on standard-based English tests

Table 39. Needs in ELT linguistic components

Table 40. Needs in ELT communicative dimensions

Table 41. Needs in ELT cultural dimensions

Table 42. Additional comments of respondents

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank King Abdulaziz University for providing me with a PhD scholarship. I express my gratitude to everyone who contributed to this thesis, including the participants. My thanks goes as well to the staff and students at the University of Southampton, particularly to the faculties of Modern Languages Department and Centre of Global Englishes. These individuals have been a constant inspiration and source of guidance throughout this project.

Thanks must also go to the statisticians whose suggestions helped in raising the quality of the statistical procedures I have conducted and to the editors for their editorial advice on phrasing and language. Their advice has been sought with the oversight of my main supervisor. No changes of intellectual content were made as a result of their recommendations.

My main supervisor, Dr. Robert Baird, has earned my deep-felt gratitude for all the faith he showed in my project and for all his efforts and suggestions during the completion of my PhD journey.

My deepest appreciation to my beloved parents, siblings, and friends, whose support and encouragements were always with me. Special thanks to my mother, who took care of my children when I needed time for myself to complete this thesis.

Lastly, I dedicate this thesis to my children (Faris, Leen, Jowan, and Yousef), who have always motivated me to carry on.

Abbreviations

Chapter 1:   Introduction

1.1   Starting point

1.1.1   Questioning orthodox assumptions

With an a priori way of thinking, in 2013 I described Saudi students’ outcomes of English as ‘abysmal’ in an empirical study I conducted with Bahanshal (see Bukhary and Bahanshal, 2013: 192). Our study examined boosting Saudi students’ motivation to improve their English. In that study, I judged students’ non-standard English negatively, but I had forgotten that my own English does not always conform to Standard English (StE). The goal was to transform students’ English into ‘correct’ English in the eyes of mainstream orientations such as English as a foreign language (EFL), English as a second language (ESL), Second Language Acquisition (SLA), and English language teaching (ELT) models. Our findings revealed that Saudis are very eager to learn/use English for ‘instrumental motives’ (e.g., education and career), but they feel demotivated in English classes because formal teaching focuses on the correction of linguistic forms (especially grammar) and does not allow students to develop the skills necessary for real-life interactions. Students complained that teachers’ overcorrection to produce StE and teachers’ imposition of usages of English as a native/first language (ENL) demotivated students and blocked their language creativity. Our recommendations proposed a shift toward communicative skills with an underlying assumption that this shift should involve matching StE and ENL usages, interactive strategies, and the integration of English for Specific Purposes within general English courses.

At that time, I did not question the fundamental assumptions of the mainstream SLA/ESL/EFL/ELT models. For instance, I did not ask myself whether they suit today’s globalisation of English, whether conformity to StE or ENL usages guarantees success in international communication in English, whether users depart from StE or ENL usages for certain reasons, and whether the stabilised language models exist in real-life practices. In 2016, after taking a Global Englishes course at the University of Southampton, I started questioning these orthodox assumptions and looking beyond the surface of the linguistic forms. Thus, I revisited the data that Bahanshal and I had collected in our study. When I reinterpreted our participants’ accounts, I came up with different conclusions (e.g., students’ desire to add their own imprints on English, students’ positive attitudes towards English in spite of teachers’ insistence to the contrary, and the mismatch between the kind of English students need/love to learn/use and the kind of English they are taught). Because Bahanshal and I employed partialist approaches, our data were not rich enough to achieve an understanding of the whole. A holistic picture is what the present study aims to explore. With an a posteriori way of thinking, the present study aims to examine the voices of Saudis, who have not previously been given the chance to reveal how far they (in)tolerate misalignment with StE and/or ENL usages, when and why they adjust their English usage, what motivations, identifications, and ideologies are behind their judgements, how their positions relate to their reported use of English, and how their reported use of English relates to ‘Saudi English’ corpora and natural discourse studies (see Section 2.4).

1.1.2   Going beyond variationist perspectives

‘Global Englishes’ is used as an umbrella term to capture interests in understanding English beyond the narrow confines of ENL settings and in challenging the orthodoxy of ELT, ESL, SLA, and EFL (Galloway and Rose, 2015). According to the various schools of thought and/or times of publishing, scholars have associated different terms with these interests. I have avoided all paradigms and expressions which suggest an impression of stability, one bounded entity, and/or exclusion of ENL users such as English as an international language (e.g., McKay, 2002, 2003, 2009; Pennycook, 1994), English as a global language (e.g., Crystal, 1998), English as a world language (e.g., Mair, 2003), and lingua franca English (e.g., Canagarajah, 2007; Firth, 1996). I have chosen to adapt the expression ‘English as a lingua franca’ (ELF) because its paradigm acknowledges dynamism, complexity, translingual liquidity, and the transcultural nature of today’s use of English within and across geographical borders (e.g., Baird, 2012, 2013; Baird and Baird, 2018; Baird, Baker, and Kitazawa, 2014; Baker, 2015a, 2015b; Cogo, 2015; Galloway, 2013; Galloway and Rose, 2013, 2014, 2015; Jenkins, 2015a, 2015b, 2017a, 2017b; Mauranen, 2012, 2013; Seidlhofer, 2010, 2011). Although early ELF researchers in the 2000s tried to examine the possibility of ELF codification (e.g., Kirpatrick, 2007a, 2007b), ELF theorisation, analysis, and data revealed diversity, dynamism, and complexity (see Section 2.3). It is important to state that I do not suggest that ELF is sui generis because diversity, dynamism, and complexity exist in any communication in any language use. My framework suggests that all lingua franca (LF) communications exhibit these characteristics more often than monolingual/monocultural communications do.

Due to notorious debates around birth-right native-ness and functional native-ness in applied linguistics, some ELF studies have replaced the expressions ‘native’ and ‘non-native’ with other expressions, such as ‘Anglophone’ and ‘non-Anglophone’ (e.g., Baker, 2015a). My adaptation of some expressions (e.g., native, non-native, and first language) does not indicate my full compliance with them (see Section 3.3.2). For ease of reading, I use them sometimes but not without questioning. For instance, I use the expressions ‘native English users’ and ‘ENL users’ when I refer to Kachruvian Inner Circle users, and I use the expressions ‘non-native English users’ and ‘ELF users’ when I refer to Kachruvian Outer Circle and Expanding Circle users (see Kachru’s 1986 and 1992 models). However, I believe that ENL users become ELF users when they adjust ENL with interlocutors whose first language (L1) is not English. In some Kachruvian Expanding Circle regions, the intranational use of English reflects the sociolinguistic realities of the regions; it contains intensity and depth in their formal, informal, and contextual features; and it possesses a body of nativised registers and styles which are developed and codified as localised Englishes. In such regions, some scholars argue for the emergence of ‘new English varieties’ (e.g., ‘Asian Englishes’ in Bolton [2008], ‘Gulf English’ in Fussell [2011], and ‘Saudi English’ in Al-Rawi [2012]). To construct a holistic picture, my study seeks further insights into the issues that are behind non-conformity with StE and ENL usages. It investigates holistically how the linguistic dimensions and cognitive dimensions interact with the other dimensions of communication, including time and context. Such an investigation needs to examine Saudis’ accounts of when, why, how and how far they (dis)align their use of English with StE models, ENL usage, and ‘Saudi English’ variants.

1.1.3   Relevance of complexity theory to the present study

The present study does not investigate ‘perception’ itself. It investigates the interrelations and interactions of interconnected parts of perceived language use. By viewing language as a social practice, I treat conscious introspection, context, and time as intrinsic parts of language use. From this complexity theory-informed lens, the unit of study of this research consists of a nested web (webs within webs). To holistically explore the interactions among the parts of this web, I add cognitive, affective, conative, social, temporal, and contextual dimensions to the traditional conceptualisations of ‘perception’ and its interconnected parts (e.g., beliefs, attitudes, ideologies, motives, identifications, and experiences). With this transdisciplinary perspective, I conceptualise each part as a fluid process that is capable of change in response to change in other interrelated parts. I realise my complexity theory-informed perspectives on some notions such as ‘action’, ‘language’, ‘perception’, ‘mind’, and ‘ideology’ may not obtain the approval of some philosophers in the humanities, social sciences, and ELF fields. Of course, as argued by Van Dijk (1998: 1), these ‘complex’ notions are always controversial and ‘seem to happily live in the fuzzy life’. Furthermore, I realise that many humanities and social science scholars have no liking for these complexity theory-informed approaches and perspectives on social phenomena, perception studies, and language use research. However, my overall orientation in the present project mirrors my position as an applied linguist who is attempting to mediate between the rigidity of theories and real-world problems. Bearing this position in mind, this section discusses the relevant insights of complexity theory.

Complexity theory originally emerged from research in the physical sciences, biology, and mathematics to investigate complex phenomena. It has been productive in psychology and social psychology. A complexity theory paradigm is an emerging research paradigm in social science studies when traditional paradigms cannot adequately explain a phenomenon (Cohen, Manion, and Morrison, 2013). Complexity theory was first prominently employed to applied linguistics research by Diane Larsen-Freeman (1997) as an alternative to the simplistic linear model of SLA. Larsen-Freeman (2011) and Baker (2015a) proposed a complexity theory approach to accommodate both psychological and social perspectives when investigating the relationships between language use and perception to consider the social and cognitive dimensions of these relationships. This is not to suggest adopting identical approaches of complexity theory