Report on HKU/KCL Summer School
in Sociolinguistics 2014
Report on
Joint HKU/KCL Summer School in Sociolinguistics
University of Hong Kong
14-16 July 2014
1. Overview of organisation
2. Curriculum
3. Feedback
3.1
Quantitative
3.2
Qualitative
3.3
Feedback two months later
4. Evaluation of feedback
5. Conclusion
Appendix I:
Linguistics at King’s and Hong Kong University
Appendix II:
The participants
Appendix III:
The programme
Attachment:
Raw data from feedback questionnaire HKU-KCL SSS
1
Report on HKU/KCL Summer School
in Sociolinguistics 2014
1. Overview of organisation
The HKU/KCL Doctoral Summer School in Sociolinguistics (abbreviated in this document to
‘HKS’) builds on the international partnership agreement between Hong Kong University and
King’s College London. It was jointly organised by KCL’s Centre for Language Discourse &
Communication (www.kcl.ac.uk/ldc) and HKU’s Faculties of Arts (arts.hku.hk/) and Education
(web.edu.hku.hk/), and it draws on a significant record of collaboration between linguists in the
two institutions (see Appendix I). HKS was attended by 9 students and 2 staff from King’s, 12
students and 2 staff from HKU (evenly divided between Education and English), and 2 students
from the University of the Western Cape (part of LDC’s ongoing link with the Department of
Linguistics at the University of the Western Cape
(http://www.kcl.ac.uk/sspp/departments/education/research/ldc/International-Links/UWC.aspx)
(see Appendix II for a list of participants). The Summer School was hosted by HKU’s School of
English, which also provided substantial administrative support. It was jointly funded by King’s
Worldwide, which paid for the travel of the 11 KCL participants (c. GBP £10,000); by the two
HKU Faculties, which co-funded the visitors’ board and accommodation at the Island Pacific
Hotel, provided them with a daily per diem, coffee and tea breaks, and hosted a welcome lunch at
the HKU Senior Common Room and a farewell dinner at Kung Tak Lam Shanghai Cuisine (HKD
64,275 [GBP £5,080]); and by funds of the KCL/UWC link, which supported the UWC students’
travel, board and accommodation.
2. Curriculum
The plan was for the HKS to be student-led. Four Faculty members made their expertise
available, but the timetable was to be designed by the PhD participants at the two institutions.
The Faculty were: Professor Adam Jaworski (HKU; offering expertise in: The sociolinguistics of
fleeting relationships [esp in tourism]; Semiotic landscapes); Dr Miguel Pérez Milans (HKU;
Ethnography of institutions; Language-in-education policy and practice); Dr Eva Ogiermann
(KCL; Methodologies in the study of apologies; Politeness); Prof Ben Rampton (KCL; Goffman;
Linguistic anthropology of genre; Theory & method in linguistic ethnography). Rachel
Heinrichsmeier and Kelvin Lui from King’s and Aaron Anfinson (HKU English) and Enmou
Huang (HKU Education) took the lead coordinating role among the students, and produced a
comprehensive three-day programme of presentations, lectures, workshops and data-sessions that
included 6 hours of parallel sessions and also allowed good breaks for informal interaction. The
programme and abstracts are included in Appendix III.
2
Report on HKU/KCL Summer School
in Sociolinguistics 2014
3. Feedback
3.1 At the end of the three days, students were asked to complete a feedback questionnaire (see
Appendix IV for the questionnaire and Attachment 1 for raw data)1 and this included a 5 point
rating scale (5 = ‘strongly agree’; 1 = ‘strongly disagree’). The results are shown in Table 1, and
suggest a high level of student satisfaction, with a mean of 4.71 for ‘the Summer School was
stimulating’, 4.71 for ‘the SS was well-organised’, 4.66 for ‘I would recommend this international
SS to other students’, and 4.33 for ‘the SS has allowed me to reflect on theoretical and/or
methodological issues relevant to my own research’.
Table 1: Ratings elicited on the last day of HKS (21 students)
5/Strongly
agree: n. of
responses
The Summer School
was stimulating.
16
The Summer School
was well-organised.
15
The Summer school
has allowed me to
reflect on theoretical
and/or
methodological
issues that are
relevant to my own
research.
The Summer School
will make a
difference to my
research.
I have put substantial
effort into preparing
and participating in
the Summer School.
I am interested in
maintaining contact
with researchers at
the partner
institutions
I would recommend
this international
summer school to
other students
4/Agree: n.
of
responses
3/Neither
agree nor
disagree
4
1
2/
Disagree
6
1/Strongly
disagree
TOTAL
responses
MEAN
RATING
21
4.71
21
4.71
10
8
3
21
4.33
3
12
6
21
3.86
4
12
4
21
3.90
11
10
21
4.52
21
4.66
15
5
1
1
Mean scores are lower when students reflect on whether HKS will make a difference to their own
research (3.86) and on the amount of effort they have put into preparation and participation (3.90).
But there is a high level of enthusiasm for continuing the international connection (4.66 for ‘I am
interested in maintaining contact with researchers at the partner institutions’).
The four staff participating were also very positive, with an average rating of 4.75 on each of the
questions about HKS being “stimulating”, “well-organised”, worth recommending to other
students, as well as being interested in “maintaining contact” across institutions.
3.2 In the qualitative sections of the questionnaires, the international and cross-institutional dimension
was repeatedly commended:
“from a cultural perspective I found this summer school very opening and stimulating”;
“I can only see positive outcome… increasing intercultural awareness and developing
friendships. .. It may lead to collaborations between institutions”
“the international partnership is wonderful in stimulating one’s outlook and perspective about
sociolinguistics and concerns/issues studied across different regions
1
The questionnaires of the 4 Faculty are included in the Appendix, but have not been counted in Table 1.
3
Report on HKU/KCL Summer School
in Sociolinguistics 2014
“really useful for future career opportunities”;
The feature of HKS that received most criticism was its duration – at least six respondents
suggested that it should be longer, saying, for example:
“I believe that the summer school could be more extended. Instead of having a 3 day course, it
could be better if it was 5 days.”
“3 days is too short as parallel sessions meant that students had to choose which sessions to
attend.”
“our friends seem to stay here for quite a short time with a lot of things to do. So it’s kind of in a
rush for personal communication”
“3 days is not a lot to get to know all the students”
“perhaps an intensive three days was too short given the distances involved. Need additional
time”
A couple also thought that events of this kind could be more frequent (“the only weakness is that
these events are few and far between”, “the event might be formalised as an annual
occurrence”).
Criticisms of the substantive coverage at HKS sought
greater breadth (“it would be better if more variety can be brought in too. It’s a summer
school in sociolinguistics, but most of the topics are… on education”)
more data analysis sessions (“I would appreciate more data analysis sessions”, “more data
sharing sessions”)
a larger (perhaps staff-led) training component (“Professors and/or fellow PhDs
demonstrating research methodology and data analysis”; “the ‘training’ part seems a bit
weak”; “more hands-on teaching in training section”
3.3 For a cooler assessment of the longer term value of HKS, participants were emailed two months
later with these questions:
Do you think that there are any lasting benefits from the HKU/KCL Summer School? If yes,
what are they?
Do you anticipate further interaction with researchers in the partner institutions? If yes, what
are they?
Eleven students responded (6 KCL, 5 HKU), and further endorsed the value of the international
link. In addition, they commented on
the potential relevance of HKS to their career development:
“We will not be forever PhD students. It is very good to get to know other institutions in
other parts of the world. For example, what it means to be a PhD student elsewhere, to
get an idea of what matters in academic work, to get to know ‘how the game is played’
and to be more prepared for future mobility in circumstances of high job competition.”
“In the long term, the many researchers with contacts in China might offer useful avenues for
future fieldwork, co-writing and perhaps employment opportunities in Asia (since I plan
to settle in Singapore and the region).
“The process [involved in a student-led summer school]… enables students to become
accountable and responsible for the quality and success of the research program,
expands organizational skills and helps to develop important transferrable skills for
organizing for e.g. a conference in the future.”
4
Report on HKU/KCL Summer School
in Sociolinguistics 2014
its contribution to their own research projects and practices:
“I am in the field collecting data now and what I have learned from conversations with the
participants makes the data collection process more efficient and myself more confident”
“I was excited to know that my own findings have been independently corroborated by these
other bodies of work (even if much of this work including mine is in progress). In the
short term, I foresee myself checking back with individuals on their findings (a sort of
comparative case study) for further insights into my own work.”
“it has improved the way that I did my fieldwork”
“One development that we can report is that we (School of English) are going to run a
regular data analysis session based on the KCL model as introduced at the Summer
School.”
several practical steps being taken to continue KCL/HKU connections:
“I created a Facebook group and a lot of the researchers from the Summer Schools
immediately joined”
“xxxxx and I are planning to engage some sort of peer review of our chapter drafts…roughly
once every 6 months”
“a panel on language and identity among South Asian Youths in Hong Kong [at the 2015
sociolinguistics conference in Hong Kong], with papers from [five HKS participants]…
After the conference, we might endeavour to put our papers together and see if there’s a
potential to feature them in an edited book, although this is not certain at this point”
One student from HKU summarised the value of HKS as follows:
“In a global knowledge-based and interconnected world, knowledge and networking are two
crucial elements for successful academic research. … I anticipate lots of academic
collaboration with some PhD students from KCL, in ways of discussion via emails and
Skype, and future co-authoring academic papers. … I would strongly recommend such an
activity to my academic sisters and brothers as well.”
4. Evaluation of feedback
All the signs are that HKS was a considerable success, and that it is worth repeating. If we do so,
it will be worth giving careful thought to the suggestions for improvement, particularly the ideas
about increasing the duration and including more data sessions. On the question of whether there
might be a more explicit training element, it is important to recognise (a) that there is already a
very intensive 5-day training-focused annual summer school at King’s (Ethnography Language
and Communication) that several HKU researchers have actually attended, and that (b) much of
the distinctiveness – and indeed sustainability – of HKS resides in its identity as a student-led
activity. It may be possible to ensure a greater breadth of interests among the participants when
the number of applicants substantially exceeds the number of places, but that was not possible this
year.
5. Conclusion
The HKU/KCL Summer School in Sociolinguistics was a short, intense and very productive
platform for doctoral researchers to strengthen their knowledge of both new and familiar topics
and approaches, to present their work, and to interact informally with peers and professors. For
many, it turned out to be a first or rare opportunity to get feedback from people outside their usual
circle, and to establish and expand their networks internationally. It provided an excellent way for
5
Report on HKU/KCL Summer School
in Sociolinguistics 2014
the students to get socialized into aspects of academic life that are not accessible to them on a
daily basis.
For faculty, the summer school was also an invaluable networking opportunity, and the three days
HKU and KCL colleagues spent together allowed them to share their experience and ‘good
practice’ in supervising postgraduate researchers. It reinforced their commitment to future
collaboration in, for example, co-supervising joint PhD candidates and participating in events
organized by their respective institutions. And they benefitted intellectually from interacting with
these students, gaining useful bibliographical information on topics of mutual interest as well as
getting valuable feedback on their plenary presentations and pre-circulated writing.
In view of its success and impact, there are strong grounds for seeking to repeat the event in 2016,
this time at King’s. Depending on the resources and demand, student and faculty numbers could
be expanded to include representation from the HKU Department of Linguistics,2 as well as to
increase participation from UWC.3
The planning, organization and running of HKS should remain student-led, allowing doctoral
researchers to take ownership of the event and develop useful transferable skills in the
organization of academic events. This format is also flexible enough for students to vary the
manner and degree of their participation according to the demands of the stage they have reached
in their PhD projects – in 2014, some were ‘writing up’, some had reached the phase of postfieldwork data analysis, and some had just finished their first year.
We wish to thank our sponsors and the support staff in our institutions for their generous funding,
and for making various other resources available to us all.
In particular, we thank:
HKU Faculty of Arts: Professor Douglas Kerr, Dean Faculty of Arts; Mr Edward Shen,
Secretary Faculty of Arts
HKU School of English: Dr Dirk Noël, Head School of English, and all support staff at the
School of English Office: Ms. Kitty Mak, Ms. Samantha Chan, Mr Franky Lau and Mr.
Tamix Wong.
HKU Faculty of Education: Professor Steve Andrews, Dean of Faculty of Education;
Professor Gerard Postiglione, Associate Dean for Research; Ms. Ada Cheung, Senior
Manager at the Office of Research.
KCL: Professor Vaughan Robinson, Director of the Graduate School; Ms Anna Debska,
Global Engagement Manager, King’s Worldwide; Mr Tayyeb Shah, Director of International
Strategy; Ms Annalisa Fagan, Administrator, Centre for Language Discourse &
Communication.
And a very special thanks to Ms. Kelly Tse, the School of English Events Office, for her
marvellous work overseeing all the organizational, administrative and financial aspects of the
Summer School.
Professor Ben Rampton & Dr Eva Ogiermann (KCL)
Professor Adam Jaworski & Dr Miguel Pérez-Milans (HKU)
28 September 2014
2
This year, Linguistics ran a separate PhD event concurrently with HKS, which precluded their students from participation
It would also be worth exploring the scope for drawing in sociolinguistics staff and students from the National University
of Singapore.
3
6
Report on HKU/KCL Summer School
in Sociolinguistics 2014
APPENDIX I
Linguistics at King’s and Hong Kong University:
Links between the Centre for Language Discourse & Communication
and linguists at HKU
(prior to HKS 2014)
The Centre for Language Discourse and Communication is developing multilevel links with Hong
Kong University, connecting with linguistics staff and students across HKU (Faculty of Education,
Dept of English, Dept of Linguistics).
1. KCL staff involvement so far:
Prof Constant Leung (KCL) has been External Examiner for the BA/B.Ed in Language
Education at HKU (2007-10), and has examined PhDs at both HKU & Polytechnic University.
He is a Panel Member in the current Hong Kong Research Assessment Exercise, and in June
2014, has given a keynote on English language education to researchers from all eight HK
universities. He is also external advisor to the Humanities Faculty, HK Institute of Education.
Prof Ben Rampton (KCL) spent two week at HKU in May 2013, where he held meetings with
staff from Departments of English, Linguistics, and the Faculty of Education. He held
tutorials with 7 PhD students, presented 4 papers (3 to HKU linguists and 1 to the Hong Kong
Association for Applied Linguistics, and accompanied to HKU researchers on fieldsite visits.
Dr Miguel Pérez-Milans (HKU) spent the first year of his 2010-12 Spanish Government postdoctoral fellowship at King’s, shifting to HKU for his second and the taking up an HKU Faculty
position
Prof Angel Lin (HKU) has visited Kings and presented a paper at a LDC Seminar (May 2012)
2. Publications emerging from the link:
Lin, A. (2012). Multilingual and multimodal resources in genre-based pedagogic approaches
to L2 English content classrooms. In C. Leung & B. Street (KCL) (Eds.), English - A changing
medium for education (pp. 79-103). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Miguel Pérez-Milans & Carlos Soto (University of Hong Kong) 2013 Critical sociolinguistics
and critical pedagogy: Dialogue in a multilingual Hong Kong school Working Papers in Urban
Language & Literacies 103 (at www.kcl.ac.uk/ldc )
M. Pérez-Milans 2013 Hong Kong Urban Classroom Culture: Local Dilemmas & Opportunities
in EMI-based Multilingual Schools. University of Hong Kong. Based on R. Harris et al 2011
Urban Classroom Culture: Realities, Dilemmas, Responses. King’s College London: Centre for
LDC
3. Research projects developed from the link:
2011-13: "Chinese and English as Languages of the Wider World: a Sociolinguistic Study on
Second Language Education and Youth’s Interests in London, Madrid, and Hong Kong"
Researchers: Miguel Pérez-Milans & Angel Lin (HKU); Ben Rampton & Constant Leung (KCL).
(Funding: UAM-Santander and King's China Institute - €13,000)
Under review: “Internationalisation and social cohesion in the provision of language
education: Hong Kong and London”. PI: Miguel Pérez-Milans KCL Collaborators: Ben
Rampton & Constant Leung. (Bid submitted to HK Research Grants Council (HK$ 770,041 for
40 months).
4. PhD students and post-doctoral Fellows:
We have KCL PhD and MA students who are focusing on Hong Kong, and several ex-KCL PhD
linguists have taken up posts in other HK universities (City University: Drs Tracey Costley and
Johanna Woydack; HK Institute of Education: Dr Taehee Choi)
7
Report on HKU/KCL Summer School
in Sociolinguistics 2014
5. Undergraduate students:
2012-13: 5 HKU Study Abroad linguistics students spent time at Kings
June 2013: c. 30 students from HKU Linguistics Dept made a field visit to London, and LDC
staff provided five 2-hour workshops for them (Prof Rampton and Drs Dewey, Harris,
Ogiermann & Snell)
2013-14: 3 KCL linguistics students are Studying Abroad at HKU Dept of Linguistics
Linguistics was included in the 2009 Joint PhD Memorandum of Understanding between KCL and
HKU, and since then, an active multi-stranded relationship has been developing very steadily,
covering both teaching and research. Our application for funding to support an HKU/KCL
Sociolinguistics Summer School (14-16 July 2014) builds on this momentum, and although we cannot
specify the immediate outcomes of this student-driven enterprise at present, our track-record so far
provides an indication of its potential productivity.
8
Report on HKU/KCL Summer School
in Sociolinguistics 2014
APPENDIX II
Participants at HKS 2014
HKU Faculty of Education
Enmou Huang
Lianjiang Jiang (George)
Jing Zhang
Chura Bahadur Thapa
Weihong Wang
Yanming Wu
Dr Miguel Pérez-Milans
HKU School of English
Aaron Anfinson
Jade Biyu Du
Kimberly Wei Yi Tao
Hoi Ying Alice Yau
Matthew Yeung
Richard Kun Zhang
Prof Adam Jaworski
KCL Centre for Language Discourse & Communication
Xanthipi Aristidou
Bill Batziakas
Hulya Baysal
Marianne Blattes
Rachel Heinrichsmeier
Luke Jiqun Lu
Kelvin Lui
Maria Magklara
Steve Wong
Dr Eva Ogiermann
Prof Ben Rampton
UWC Department of Linguistics
Sibonile Mpendukana
Kirby America
9
Report on HKU/KCL Summer School
in Sociolinguistics 2014
APPENDIX III
HKS PROGRAMME
KCL–HKU
PhD Summer School in Sociolinguistics
14–16 July 2014
Programme
Faculty and expertise/research interests ............................................................................................... 12
Recorders of arising issues ...................................................................................................................... 12
Advance preparation for PhD students .................................................................................................. 12
14 July 2014 – Day One ........................................................................................................................... 13
15 July 2014 – Day Two ............................................................................................................................. 4
16 July 2014 – Day Three .......................................................................................................................... 5
Abstracts ....................................................................................................................................................... 6
Day One:.................................................................................................................................................... 6
Plenary 14.30 – 15.30 ........................................................................................................................... 6
The ethnography of language policies (Miguel Pérez-Milans).......................................................... 6
Day Two: ................................................................................................................................................... 7
Plenary 9.30 – 10.30 ............................................................................................................................. 7
Language and tourism: Theorising global–fleeting relationships (Adam Jaworski) ......................... 7
Parallel Panel Sessions 11.00 – 13.00 ................................................................................................... 7
Stream A: Multi-scalar processes in language policies from text to enactment .............................. 7
Stream B: Issues and debates in taking a linguistic ethnographic approach .................................... 9
Day Three: ............................................................................................................................................... 11
Plenary 9.30 – 10.30 ........................................................................................................................... 11
Methodological Issues in Researching Politeness (in an intercultural context) (Eva Ogiermann) . 11
Plenary 11.00 – 12.00 ......................................................................................................................... 12
Methodological issues in linguistic ethnography (Ben Rampton) .................................................. 12
Parallel Panel Sessions 13.30 – 15.30 ................................................................................................. 12
Stream A: Researching migration and multiethnicity as topic or process ...................................... 12
Stream B: Educational discourses, ideologies, and classroom realities.......................................... 14
Appendices: information for preparation ................................................................................................... 16
10
Report on HKU/KCL Summer School
in Sociolinguistics 2014
Poster Presentation: You and Your Research ......................................................................................... 16
Micro-Discourse Analysis Data Session Guidelines (Day One) ............................................................... 17
Papers for Panel Discussions: Guidelines................................................................................................ 18
Readings .................................................................................................................................................. 18
Programme coordinators: Emergency contact numbers (for programme and social) .......................... 18
11
Report on HKU/KCL Summer School
in Sociolinguistics 2014
Faculty and expertise/research interests
Professor Adam Jaworski (HKU): offering expertise in: The sociolinguistics of fleeting
relationships (in the context of commodified interactions in tourism); Semiotic landscapes
Dr Miguel Pérez Milans (HKU): Ethnography of Institutions; Language-in-education policy and
practice
Dr Eva Ogiermann (KCL): (Cross-cultural) pragmatics, politeness theory, intercultural
communication, and conversation analysis
Prof Ben Rampton (KCL): Goffman; Genre (from a linguistic anthropological perspective); Theory
& method in linguistic ethnography
Recorders of arising issues
Aaron Anfinson
ZHANG Jing
Advance preparation for PhD students
Preparation of three-minute single-powerpoint slide presentation of their PhD/aspect of
their PhD for the ‘three-minute thesis’ sessions (for criteria see:
http://www.ed.ac.uk/schools-departments/institute-academicdevelopment/postgraduate/doctoral/3mt/entrants/criteria [last accessed 29th May 2014]
Preparation of poster4
Papers for panels (if presenting at a panel session)5
Preparation of data for data sessions (for students sharing data)6
Advance reading list7
4
See guidelines attached
See brief guidelines attached
6
See guidelines for KCL MDA sessions attached
7
See list attached
5
12
14 July 2014 – Day One
9.15 – 9.30
9.30 – 10.00
10.00 – 11.00
11.00 – 11.30
11.30 – 12.30
12.30 – 13.00
13.00 – 14.30
14.30 – 15.30
15.30 – 16.00
16.00 – 18.00
Opening and photo op
[Room CRT-7.45, Run Run Shaw Tower, Centennial Campus, HKU]
Welcome, introductions and overview
[Room CRT-7.45]
Three-minute thesis part one: (3 minute introduction by each of the 24
students on what their research is about, speaking to a SINGLE powerpoint
slide.)
[Room CRT-7.45]
Coffee and tea
Three-minute thesis part two
[Room CRT-7.45]
Feedback (Faculty)
[Room CRT-7.45]
Lunch
[Senior Common Room]
Plenary session (Lecture and discussion)
The ethnography of language policies (Miguel)
[Room CRT-7.45]
Coffee and tea
Parallel micro data sessions (focus on analyzing specific spoken data) 8
Chair/facilitator: Adam/Eva
[Room CRT-7.45]
Hulya Baysal: The meaning of
Turkishness among a group
of young people of TurkishCypriot, Kurdish and Turkish
descent (micro discourse
analysis)
19.00
8
Chair/facilitator: Ben/Miguel
[Room CRT-7.58]
Alice Yau: Professional and
parental responsibility in the
management of risk in
children affected by a genetic
disorder – naturally occurring
audio-recorded consultations
between nurses and mothers
whose infants are diagnosed
with a genetic condition
(conversation analysis)
Dinner
See guidelines attached
13
15 July 2014 – Day Two
9.30 – 10.30
10.30 – 11.00
11.00 – 13.00
13.00 – 14.30
14.30 – 16.00
16.00 – Evening
Plenary session (lecture and discussion)
Language and tourism: Theorising global–fleeting relationships (Adam)
[Room CRT-7.45, Run Run Shaw Tower, Centennial Campus, HKU]
Coffee and tea
Parallel panel session (student
Parallel panel session (student
papers) (Chaired by Miguel and
papers) (Chaired by Ben and Eva)
Adam)
[Room CRT-7.45]
[Room CRT-7.58]
Multi-scalar processes in language
Issues and debates in taking a
policies from text to enactment
linguistic ethnographic approach
Xanthipi Aristidou: The
Rachel Heinrichsmeier: “Because
trajectory of
people do forget they’re being
history school textbooks from
taped.” Is this so? How do we
production to enactment in
know? Does it matter?
the Greek Cypriot context
Kimberly Tao: Understanding
Transgender Marriage Case
Maria Magklara: The 2010
policy-making process in
W v Registrar of Marriages
Cyprus: competing language
through Ms W's Voice
ideological debates in
Stephen Wong: ‘That’s why
circulation
you’re so yellow!’:
Matt Yeung: Access to justice
Researching Somalis as an
in a bilingual legal system:
outsider
how an unrepresented
litigant makes sense of the
Chinese legal language in
Hong Kong
Lunch
Trials and tribulations of PhD Research (PhD students only: plenary)
[Room CRT-7.45]
Bill Batziakas: Memoirs of a PHD thesis (15-20 minute presentation
followed by discussion of issues arising in talk, and more generally
from students’ experiences)
Group trips to local attractions and evening meal
14
16 July 2014 – Day Three
9.30 – 10.30
10.30 – 11.00
11.00 – 12.00
12.00 – 13.30
13.30 – 15.30
15.30 – 16.00
16.00 – 17.30
19.00
Plenary session (Lecture and discussion)
Methodological Issues in Researching Politeness (in an intercultural context)
(Eva)
[Room CRT-7.45, Run Run Shaw Tower, Centennial Campus, HKU]
Coffee and tea
Plenary session (Lecture and discussion)
The notion of genre in a linguistic ethnographic approach (Ben)
[Room CRT-7.45]
Lunch
Parallel panel session (student
Parallel panel session (student
papers) (Chaired by Eva/Miguel)
papers) (Chaired by Ben/Adam)
[Room CRT-7.45]
[Room CRT-7.58]
Researching migration and multiEducational discourses, ideologies,
ethnicity as topic or process
and classroom realities
Jiqun Lu (Luke): Being an
Marianne Blattes: Combining
immigrant researcher in
CDA and ethnography for
Singapore
language policy analysis
Huang Enmou: The myth of
Wang Weihong: Ideological
‘migrants as problems’:
constructions of English in a
Exploring complex and
mainland Chinese university:
dynamic discursive processes
An ethnographic study
of institutional change in late
Wu Yanming, Amy: Classroom
modern China
interactions in a secondary
school CLIL science lesson
Kelvin Lui: Societal
(provisional title)
discourses, institutional
rhetorics, and local
interaction: Language
learning for social integration
in a Hong Kong multiethnic
youth centre
Coffee and tea
Summary of arisen issues, discussion and close
[Room CRT-7.45]
Farewell Dinner (Kung Tak Lam Shanghai Cuisine, Causeway Bay; Bus leaves
from HKU at 18.15 and stops at Island Pacific Hotel at 18.30 to pick up
remaining participants before heading to the dinning place)
15
Abstracts
Day One:
Plenary 14.30 – 15.30
The ethnography of language policies (Miguel Pérez-Milans)
In this session, we will discuss on the empirical challenges of exploring language policy issues in
ethnographically-and-discursively oriented research. Before the session, you should read the following
text:
Pérez-Milans, M. (2013). Reform and innovation in China’s English Language Education: insights from the
classroom. In: Urban Schools and English Language Education in Late Modern China: A Critical
Sociolinguistic Ethnography (Chapter 5). Routledge Critical Studies in Multilingualism. New York &
London: Routledge.
This book chapter provides an account of language-in-education policy and practice in the schools I
researched in China. Please, read it and bring questions/issues you would like to discuss, if any.
For further reading (if you have time), you might also like to read the paper below, which shows
analytical examples of on-going research about Mandarin language education policy in the UK.
Pérez-Milans, M. (2014). Mandarin Chinese in London education: Language Aspirations in a WorkingClass Secondary School. Working Papers in Urban Language & Literacies (Paper 129), King's College
London.
References
Pérez-Milans, M. (2013). Reform and innovation in China’s English Language Education: insights from the
classroom. In: Urban Schools and English Language Education in Late Modern China: A Critical
Sociolinguistic Ethnography (Chapter 5). Routledge Critical Studies in Multilingualism. New York &
London: Routledge.
Pérez-Milans, M. (2014). Mandarin Chinese in London education: Language Aspirations in a WorkingClass Secondary School. Working Papers in Urban Language & Literacies (Paper 129), King's College
London.
16
Day Two:
Plenary 9.30 – 10.30
Language and tourism: Theorising global–fleeting relationships (Adam Jaworski)
As a mode of delivery of the tourist product (e.g. service encounters, guided tours), and as the tourist
product itself (e.g. performances of local languages by tour guides), language is of central concern in
tourism – a major, global cultural industry and key contributor to the ‘experience’ economy. Multilingual
resources in tourism are deployed for identification, authentication and commodification. The main aim
of this session is to brainstorm around some ideas discussed in the suggested reading (see below) and
additional, brief data examples to be presented in class. The question to be addressed is as follows:
‘What are the best possible metaphors for theorising the sociolinguistics of fleeting relationships in
global tourism?’
Key reading
Monica Heller, Adam Jaworski and Crispin Thurlow. 2014. Introduction: Sociolinguistics and tourism –
mobilities, markets, multilingualism. Journal of Sociolinguistics18(3) (in press).
Parallel Panel Sessions 11.00 – 13.00
Stream A: Multi-scalar processes in language policies from text to enactment
Xanthipi Aristidou: The trajectory of history school textbooks from production to enactment in
the Greek Cypriot context
Abstract:
The concept of ‘scales’ enables the understanding of the complexity of a social event by
connecting the here-and-now interactions with larger sociocultural processes, using layered
‘spaciotemporal’ levels (Lemke, 2000). In this presentation, starting from the ‘sociohistorical’
and moving to the ‘microgenetic’ timescale as proposed by Wortham (2005), I will try to show
how the notions of nation, nationalism and national identity are (re) articulated in the history
textbook of Year 6 in elementary education in the Greek Cypriot context. Special focus will be
given to the debate between competing discourses in the sociopolitical sphere, i.e.
‘Hellenocentric’, ‘Cypriotcentric’ and ‘Greekcypriotcentric’, in combination with current trends
in pedagogical sciences and school historiography and their influence to the formation,
selection, production and use of history textbook in the educational setting.
References:
Lemke, J. L. (2000). Across the Scales of Time: Artifacts, Activities, and Meanings in Ecosocial
Systems. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 7(4), 273-290.
Wortham, S. (2005). Socialization beyond the Speech Event. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology,
15(1), 95-112.
17
Report on HKU/KCL Summer School
in Sociolinguistics 2014
Maria Magklara: The 2010 policy-making process in Cyprus: competing language ideological
debates in circulation
Abstract:
In 2010 the critical literacy pedagogy syllabus was introduced for the teaching of the Greeklanguage lesson in Cyprus. This was the first time that the syllabus was locally produced and not
imported by mainland Greece. Fierce reactions were provoked mainly from the conservative
structures of authority with reference to the introduction of the Greek-Cypriot Dialect (the
vernacular) alongside Standard Modern Greek (the official language), taking it to be an act of
‘dehellinisation’ (against the Greekness). This paper presents some preliminary findings of the
language debates in education about the role and status of the two varieties. Drawing on
document analysis and on first-hand experience through a one year’s participant observation of
the policy-making process, I examine the 2010 syllabus for the teaching of the Greek language as
a historically situated process which incorporates discourses and ideologies that have emerged
in the past but are still in circulation at present. Taking a scale-sensitive approach I look at the
multiple provenance of potential of a text or practice, while I retain interest in the ways in which
the language debates interweave with wider discourses and processes about identity
construction in Cyprus, focusing on the discourses of Hellenocentrism (prioritisation of the
Greekness in the Greek-Cypriot identity) as opposed to Cypriocentrism (emphasis on the
Cypriotness).
Matt Yeung: Access to justice in a bilingual legal system: how an unrepresented litigant makes
sense of the Chinese legal language in Hong Kong
Abstract:
Unrepresented litigants’ impacts on the legal system have been well documented from the
perspectives of legal personnel such as lawyers and judges. Much, if not all, of the literature
suggests that unrepresented litigants are the ones to be blamed for the communication issues in
court because of their inability to navigate the legal system on their own. This study seeks to reexamine the issue from the bottom-up approach by examining how a well-educated
unrepresented litigant deals with the common law in Hong Kong. In particular, it reveals the
comprehension strategies the informant employed in decoding the Chinese legal language and
in preparing for the case. Such strategies provide clues as to the struggles laymen potentially
face in legal communication. Through dissecting the struggles, this study will provide an
understanding of lay advocacy, and suggest how miscommunication may be minimised for
common law jurisdictions in need of improving access to justice for unrepresented litigants.
18
Report on HKU/KCL Summer School
in Sociolinguistics 2014
Stream B: Issues and debates in taking a linguistic ethnographic approach
Rachel Heinrichsmeier: “Because people do forget they’re being taped.” Is this so? How do we know? Does
it matter?
Abstract:
Researchers adopting an ethnographic approach are frequently reminded of the importance of
systemically considering the way the researcher’s presence in the site and the research process
itself may be affecting the very data being gathered. Research, on the other hand, that focusses
more exclusively on the micro-analysis of naturally-occurring interaction, and which eschews
consideration of data exogenous to that interaction, sometimes appears to write out of the
analysis any consideration of the possible impact on the data that the method of data collection
may have had. In this paper I draw on data from my PhD, encompassing audio-recordings of
interviews and ‘naturally’ occurring interactions, and field notes of unrecorded conversations
and participation in the research site. Drawing on these data, I explore how on the one hand
some participants do in fact explicitly refer to being audio-recorded during a particular recording
of ‘naturally-occurring interaction’ yet appear not to restrain their talk as a result; whilst on the
other hand, despite not explicitly referring to being recorded, other participants do in fact
appear analysably to be restraining their talk. In this way I hope to show how an
ethnographically-informed approach, which combines detailed linguistic analysis with the ability
to draw on data exogenous to the actual recorded ‘naturally-occurring interaction’, including
researcher reflexivity on their own experiences in the field, can shed some light on the ways of
knowing whether participants are ‘forgetting’ (or not) that they are being recorded, and the
possible effects of this on the data.
Kimberly Tao: Understanding Transgender Marriage Case W v Registrar of Marriages through
Ms W's Voice
Abstract:
This paper looks at transgender identities and the law in the context of marriage. It particularly
focuses on the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal judgment W v Registrar of Marriages (2013)
FACV4/2012. It aims at better understanding the W case and finding out more about how Ms.
W, being categorized as a post-operative male-to-female transgender person, perceives the case
and her own identity through analyzing an interview that was conducted with her. A qualitative
strategy has been adopted for my project and open-ended discussions were mainly the focus of
this interview. The W case concerned the right of Ms W, a post-operative transgender woman,
19
Report on HKU/KCL Summer School
in Sociolinguistics 2014
to marry in her affirmed sex. A landmark judgment was handed down recently by the Court of
Final Appeal in 2013, ruling that Ms W was in law entitled to be included as "a woman" within
the meaning of the Marriage Ordinance. Since Ms W remained anonymous throughout the
entire court case and the judgment only covered part of Ms W's real life story, it is believed
more attention should be paid to the voices and feeling of Ms W. Through analyzing the
interview that was conducted with her, it is found that what we knew about her was mainly the
image that was created and presented by the law and the media. Goffman (1958) distinguished
front region from back region when discussing how individuals manage their impression and
self-presentation to observers. He described the front region as "the expressive equipment of a
standard kind intentionally or unwittingly employed by the individual during his performance"
(p. 32). On the other hand, the back region or backstage may be known as a place where the
impression maintained by the performer in the front region is contradictory to the one that is
found here (p.114). When W was being interviewed by the press, one can understand her as
being in the front region. Through talking to her, it is observed that there are in fact two Ws
since she played different roles in the front and back regions. It is hoped that through listening
to Ms W's opinion on her own case and identity, the gap between how transgender people were
understood by the law, how they were perceived by the society and themselves could be
bridged.
Reference:
Goffman, E (1958). The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Edinburgh : University of Edinburgh,
Social Sciences Research Centre.
Stephen Wong: ‘That’s why you’re so yellow!’: Researching Somalis as an outsider
Abstract:
My discussion will attempt to sketch a view of the challenges that I have faced as I come to grips
with researching everyday practices as an out-group member in a complementary school. Data
collection consists of extensive field notes, self-recorded interactional talk and unstructured
interviews over a period of one year. The main questions to be discussed are: 1) How do I
mediate the issues related to my positionings as an out-group member, PhD researcher and my
participation in the school as a GCSE English teacher? 2) How do I record and interpret particular
features of their language use and the accompanying corporeal gestures in my participants’
everyday lives enacted in a South London complementary school?
20
Day Three:
Plenary 9.30 – 10.30
Methodological Issues in Researching Politeness (in an intercultural context) (Eva Ogiermann)
Politeness is a feature of nearly every interpersonal encounter and while we may not be consciously
looking for it, we tend to notice and evaluate behavior that does not seem to conform to the politeness
norms we have been socialized into. Intercultural communication is a particularly interesting site for
studying politeness phenomena, as it brings together speakers with different sets of values and
expectations and, with it, the danger of (mis)interpreting others’ behavior – or coming across – as
impolite.
Politeness research has been established and is still dominated by American and British scholars; and
thus influenced by Anglo-Saxon understandings of politeness. Studies devoted to languages other than
English have been mainly conducted in the areas of cross-cultural and Interlanguage pragmatics, which
strongly rely on elicited, quantitative data. While the former have revealed culture-specific patterns in
the use of politeness strategies, the latter have documented instances of pragmatic transfer.
More recent approaches to the study of politeness have moved away from the pragmatic norms and
rational choices governing speakers’ use of politeness and shifted the focus to perceptions and
evaluations of politeness (and impoliteness). While this shift has produced a wealth of studies on
im/politeness in reality and talk shows and other forms of entertainment, as well as computer mediated
communication (emails, text messages, blogs, discussion forums, viewer comments and customer
feedback), studies analysing politeness in everyday interaction are still relatively rare.
In my research on politeness I have employed a variety of methods to find out more about the impact of
culture on (the production and perception of) politeness, especially in relation to British and Polish
cultures. In my talk, I will present data collected experimentally, through interviews, derived from online
discussion forums, as well as video-recordings of conversations taking place in a British / Polish family.
There are two readings for this session: Jonathan Culpeper’s excellent overview of the field of politeness
research and, if you have the time, a paper documenting some of my early research comparing the use
of politeness in English, German, Polish and Russian requests.
References
Culpeper, Jonathan (2011) Politeness and impoliteness. In: Karin Aijmer and Gisle Andersen (eds.)
Sociopragmatics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 391-436.
Ogiermann, Eva (2009) Politeness and in-directness across cultures: A comparison of English, German,
Polish and Russian requests. Journal of Politeness Research. Language, Behaviour, Culture, 5(2), 189-216.
21
Report on HKU/KCL Summer School
in Sociolinguistics 2014
Plenary 11.00 – 12.00
Methodological issues in linguistic ethnography (Ben Rampton)
In this session, we will consider a 2014 paper by Rampton, Maybin & Roberts on ‘Methodological
foundations in linguistic ethnography’. Before the session itself, you should read the text and identify
three issues, questions and uncertainties that you think it would be worth us discussing together.
The paper provides a sketch of the assumptions, values, frameworks and techniques that currently
characterise linguistic ethnography, and it focuses on a series of historical, institutional and/or
methodological encounters, looking at the questions and possibilities that emerge from the interactions
between: (a) linguistics and ethnography; (b) elements interacting in the communicative process; (c)
linguistic ethnography and researchers from different disciplines; (d) linguistic ethnography and nonacademic professionals.
If you have extra time, you might also like to read Hanks 2006, which is broadly compatible with (b)
above, and provides a brilliant overview of how linguistic anthropologists approach the notion of
context.
References:
Hanks, W. 2006. Context, Communicative. Encyclopedia of Language & Linguistics.
Rampton, B., J. Maybin & C. Roberts 2014. Methodological foundations in linguistic ethnography.
Working Papers in Urban Language & Literacies 125. At
https://www.academia.edu/5893933/Methodological_foundations_in_linguistic_ethnography
Parallel Panel Sessions 13.30 – 15.30
Stream A: Researching migration and multiethnicity as topic or process
Jiqun Lu (Luke): Conducting research on “immigrants” in shifting contexts in Singapore
Abstract:
My research is focused on studying the experiences of academically elite immigrant students in
Singapore. This is in order to understand the links between their identity construction,
affiliations, cultural and linguistic practices, aspirations, and past, present and future
trajectories. The context of their life in Singapore is, however, not a static one. This may be
perceived at three different levels. First, the political climate in Singapore regarding immigration
has changed drastically since 2011, and remains rather volatile. My original plan to conduct
ethnographic fieldwork in a school became untenable, partly as a result of this. Second, the
migratory trajectories, affiliations and aspirations of my informants are subject to change. Third,
22
Report on HKU/KCL Summer School
in Sociolinguistics 2014
these changes, coupled with the shifting macro political context (and circulating public
discourses), might percolate into the interactions of peer groups that my informants operate in.
It might be consequential for how their immigrant identities are consolidated, contested or
ignored. All of these mean that I ought to develop a methodology that is (i) ‘nimble’ enough to
be viable in a climate sensitive to immigrants; (ii) able to track and account for potential changes
as they occur during my fieldwork.
Huang Enmou: The myth of ‘migrants as problems’: Exploring complex and dynamic discursive
processes of institutional change in late modern China
Abstract:
In this presentation, I employ a critical sociolinguistic ethnography to study the discursive
construction and contestation of “education quality” and “migrant students” in one public
school in China, with the attempt to show the complex and dynamic discursive processes of
institutional change and local struggles of the school teachers and migrant students. Methods of
critical discourse analysis, conversation analysis, combined with field notes and interviews,
reveal the mutual enforcing discourses of declining education quality and increasing migrant
students as (re-)contextualized in multiple institutional documents and teachers’ verbal
discourses. However, local practices of the institution and the students challenged the above
discursive ‘myth’ as a dualist vicious circle. Based on these contested discursive constructions, I
discuss two implications: (1) current institutional discourse studies should consider about taking
a ‘late modern’, ‘new capitalism’ perspective to reveal complexities; (2) The ‘micro-macro’
analytic mindset in understand social and discursive processes should be complemented by a
historical/’recontextualization’ mindset.
Kelvin Lui: Societal discourses, institutional rhetorics, and local interaction: Language learning
for social integration in a Hong Kong multiethnic youth centre
Abstract:
While there has emerged a body of research on the lived experiences of immigrant youths in
Hong Kong schools, how broader discourses on academic success and social integration are
enacted in the day-to-day activities at non-formal learning spaces remains understudied. This
research looks into the peer talk among a group of 8- to 14- year-olds of mainly Pakistani, Nepali
and Indian descents in a government-funded multiethnic youth centre based in Sham Shui Po, a
predominantly working class district. The data obtained through participant observation and
field notes were complemented with video recordings of a Saturday Cantonese “class,” where
children were engaged through activities and group competitions. Using micro discourse
analysis, I explore the ways the space as a classroom was constituted of and continually
23
Report on HKU/KCL Summer School
in Sociolinguistics 2014
reproduced by the language practices of the social actors present. Young speakers draw on
metapragmatic knowledge to negotiate stereotypical understandings of the relation between
learning aspirations and actual linguistic behaviours. While the established literature tends to
position minority children as victims of an unsuccessful educational system that fails to help
them acquire standard Chinese, this paper complicates such a perspective by addressing the
ways in which the youngsters creatively and discursively mix vernacular concerns with an
orientation to school success.
Stream B: Educational discourses, ideologies, and classroom realities
Marianne Blattes: Combining CDA and ethnography for language policy analysis
Abstract:
The multi-layered nature of language policy presents certain methodological issues notably the
difficulty of bringing together a macro-level analysis of language policies and a micro-level
investigation of classroom practices and attitudes. Although it is useful to study documents as
ideological productions, it is also necessary to see what actually happens on the ground because
local educators have the power to resist, adopt or change language policy issued at 'the top'. I
will argue that one way of examining language policy trajectories and seeing how language
policies/statements and related discourses move through different levels is by combining CDA
and ethnographic methods.
Wang Weihong: Ideological constructions of English in a mainland Chinese university: An
ethnographic study
Abstract:
This study investigates the ideologies of English as constructed in a Chinese university within
mainland China (hereafter China). With the intensification of globalization, increasing studies
have aimed at understanding the role of English in this globalizing era. However, many are
generic interpretations and are not sufficient enough to elucidate the complexity of ideological
ramifications of English in specific localities. In response to the call for “practices turn” (Schatzki,
2001) in global English research, this study plans to localize the investigation in a Chinese
university. With an ethnographic research design, this study seeks to understand how ideologies
of English and English practices negotiate into being at this university site with an integrative
consideration of social reality in four domains: contexts, settings, situated activities and self
(Layder, 1993). The initial month-long stay at the site reveals that: 1) English has been assigned
with various kinds of importance at the site in face of globalization and English becoming an
international language; and 2) English has been evaluated and appropriated differently in three
conditions: College English course, English-Chinese Bilingual Teaching program, and off-class
24
Report on HKU/KCL Summer School
in Sociolinguistics 2014
English activities. It seems that there are three different linguistic markets for different English
practices, within which the ideological mechanisms are working differently.
References
Layder, D. (1993). New strategies in social research: An introduction and guide. Cambridge:
Polity Press.
Schatzki, T. R. (2001). Practice mind-ed orders. In T. R. Schatzki, K. Knorr-Cetina & E. von Savigny
(Eds.), The practice turn in contemporary theory (pp. 50-63). London: Routledge.
25
Appendices: information for preparation
Poster Presentation: You and Your Research
It’s obviously important that participants and the programme team all get to know each other, and so
here’s a procedure to facilitate this, to supplement the three-minute-thesis presentations:
1) Please provide information about your research, guided by some or all of the questions listed below,
taking up no more than an A4 sheet. (Please feel free to omit and/or add to the questions as you
see fit.)
2)
3)
Email it to kellykit2003@gmail.com no later than Tuesday 1st July
We’ll enlarge the A4 sheet into posters which we’ll mount on the walls, so please make it readable
(we’d suggest a font size of 14-18).
Your name:
The (current) title of your research
The disciplinary field(s) and/or sub-field(s) where you’re working:
o the traditions you’d align with
o 2 or 3 authors or texts that you find particularly relevant and stimulating
o ideas or authors you find a little problematic (and might be arguing against in your
dissertation)
The general research questions you’re investigating, and how you arrived at them
Your fieldwork and/or data: The kinds of people & situations you’re focusing on, and the kinds of
data you’re collecting.
Your analysis (either planned or being undertaken): What you’re analysing, how?
The stage you’re reached in your project
Difficulties you’ve had to contend with (but managed to overcome)
What you’re finding tricky at the moment
A/some potential implication(s) of your research
Your institution (department & university) and email address
(Remember not to exceed one A4 sheet, and as we’ll turn it into a poster, try not to pack it too densely)
26
Report on HKU/KCL Summer School
in Sociolinguistics 2014
Micro-Discourse Analysis Data Session Guidelines (Day One)
This session involves one member of the group bringing a piece of data, usually audio or audio-visual
data with an accompanying transcript. The data tends to be only a 2-3 minutes (a couple of pages of
transcript), and once it has been introduced and contextualised, the group will be invited to listen to
the data several times and analyse it individually for about 15 minutes. After we’ve all had a chance
to listen to it, look at it and think about it, we will discuss our approaches, interpretations,
confusions and conclusions.
Although the person who brings the data is invited to introduce the data and to suggest angles that
they would find useful (for example, a focus on narrative or turn-taking), this data session is NOT a
presentation, but a two-hour-long interactive discussion.
In these sessions we shall:
share ideas about how to approach data for the first time
get exposed to other people’s data
and most importantly, practise close analysis of discourse data.
For the data presenters: You will need to choose a short piece of audio or video data (no more than
3 minutes) to discuss, and bring it along on a memory stick or your own laptop. Please make sure
your data is easily found (e.g. if you want to look at 3 minutes on a 2 hour recording, edit the 3
minute data into its own clip).
You will need to bring enough transcripts for the group to look at (c.16).
Guidelines for transcripts:
Use standard conversation analysis transcription conventions, but only go into the amount
of detail that's necessary for you. E.g. if you aren't interested in pauses, you don't needed to
differentiate between a 0.2 second pause and a 0.7 second pause!
Double space the transcript
Put line breaks at the end of clauses or other 'sense making units', rather than the lines
running on as prose.
Include line numbers
Include time stamps every 15 seconds or so, so that we can all follow the transcript
If your data is not in English, it will need an accurate English line-by-line translation in the
transcript too.
Finally, you should come prepared to point to a short section of the transcript (up to 20
lines) that you particularly want us all to focus on.
27
Report on HKU/KCL Summer School
in Sociolinguistics 2014
Papers for Panel Discussions: Guidelines
Each panel session lasts two hours and has three presenters. The idea is to give the students
presenting the opportunity to practice presenting their ideas to an audience; to allow for feedback
on those ideas from the audience; and to facilitate wider discussion on the issues. To this end, the
following guidelines should be followed:
Students’ papers should last no more than twenty minutes. Ten minutes will be allowed at the end
of each student paper for questions and discussion specifically orientated to that paper. Once all
papers have been presented, the floor will be opened to a more general discussion on the emerging
themes.
Readings
* Readings REQUIRED by lecturers prior to plenary sessions.
† Readings recommended by lecturers prior to plenary sessions.
* Culpeper, Jonathan (2011) Politeness and impoliteness. In: Karin Aijmer and Gisle Andersen (eds.)
Sociopragmatics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 391-436.
†Hanks, W. 2006. Context, Communicative. Encyclopedia of Language & Linguistics.
* Monica Heller, Adam Jaworski and Crispin Thurlow. 2014. Introduction: Sociolinguistics and
tourism – mobilities, markets, multilingualism. Journal of Sociolinguistics18(3) (in press).
†Ogiermann, Eva (2009) Politeness and in-directness across cultures: A comparison of English,
German, Polish and Russian requests. Journal of Politeness Research. Language, Behaviour, Culture,
5(2), 189-216.
* Pérez-Milans, M. (2013). Reform and innovation in China’s English Language Education: insights
from the classroom. In: Urban Schools and English Language Education in Late Modern China: A
Critical Sociolinguistic Ethnography (Chapter 5). Routledge Critical Studies in Multilingualism. New
York & London: Routledge.
†Pérez-Milans, M. (2014). Mandarin Chinese in London education: Language Aspirations in a
Working-Class Secondary School. Working Papers in Urban Language & Literacies (Paper 129), King's
College London.
* Rampton, B., J. Maybin & C. Roberts 2014. Methodological foundations in linguistic ethnography.
Working Papers in Urban Language & Literacies 125. At
https://www.academia.edu/5893933/Methodological_foundations_in_linguistic_ethnography
Programme coordinators: Emergency contact numbers (for programme and
social)
Aaron Anfinson: +852 9715 7361
Enmou Huang: +852 5492 2856
Rachel Heinrichsmeier: +44 7764 176080
Kelvin Lui: +852 9684 2058
28
Report on HKU/KCL Summer School
in Sociolinguistics 2014
APPENDIX IV
Feedback questionnaire
Joint HKU/KCL
Summer School in Sociolinguistics
PARTICIPANT FEEDBACK
Your feedback on the Summer School would be enormously valuable for us. So we would very much
appreciate it if you could address the questions below.
BACKGROUND
Please feel free to answer anonymously, but to contextualise your responses,
1
What are the topics of your research?
2
At what stage are you in your research and/or career?
EVALUATION
1
What aspects of the Summer School have worked well for you? Comment on e.g. the
training organisation, content, presentation, resources, activities etc.
2
What aspects have not worked well for you? Comment on e.g. the training organisation,
content, presentation, resources, activities etc.
3
Were there any reasons preventing you from participating as much as you would have
liked? If so, which ones?
4
What did you think of the international partnership dimension? What were its strengths
and weaknesses?
5
Do you anticipate further interaction with researchers in the partner institutions, and if so,
what?
6
General observations, ideas for the future, suggestions for improvement etc.
7
Quantitative evaluation
29
Report on HKU/KCL Summer School
in Sociolinguistics 2014
To what extent do you agree / disagree with the following statements? Please rate your agreement
from 1 to 5, where 5 = “strongly agree”, 4 = “agree”, 3 = “neither agree nor disagree”, 2 = “disagree,
and 1 = “strongly disagree”.
a. The Summer School was stimulating.
5
4
3
2
1
b. The Summer School was well-organised.
5
4
3
2
1
d. The Summer School will make a difference to my research.
5
4
3
2
1
e.. I have put substantial effort into preparing and participating in the Summer
School.
5
4
3
2
1
f. I am interested in maintaining contact with researchers at the partner
institutions
5
4
3
2
1
g. I would recommend this international summer school to other students
5
4
3
2
1
5
4
3
2
1
5
4
3
2
1
c. The Summer school has allowed me to reflect on theoretical and/or
methodological issues that are relevant to my own research.
Are there any other points you would like to make?
Your name (optional): ……………………………… Date:
………………………………
30