Berns Prelim 1
An Analysis of Aviation Communications,
Aviation English,
and Methodology
Kitty Campbell Laird
Purdue University
Berns Prelim 2
What research methods have been used in analyzing aviationcommunications and phraseologies? What approaches to text/discourseanalysis do they represent? In their analysis, which coding schemes areused? Review these schemes, and then assess which, if any, would beappropriate – and why – for the project you propose to undertake for yourthesis study.
Introduction
This paper will address the research methodologies which have been used in
analyzing aviation English and communications. I will address the relevant taxonomies
and coding schemes implemented and propose possible applications for my research.
Research in Aviation Communications
The majority of research conducted regarding aviation communications utilized
one of several methodologies. Varieties of discourse analysis have been used to analyze
corpora of pilot and Air Traffic Control recordings and codify the phraseology and
structure of aviation English, survey data has been collected by self report mechanisms
such as NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System (ASRS) forms detailed below, and
field studies and experimental simulations have attempted to study phenomena of
aviation communications. While nearly ten years old, the following meta analysis
provides a good introduction to the types of studies commonly occurring in the field of
aviation.
Berns Prelim 3
Prinzo & Britton (1993)
This study analyzed 43 reports regarding the literature to date for pilot and
controller communications. The make up of the reports was 45% survey data, 41% field
studies, and 14% laboratory studies. The review addressed three major questions: 1) What
is known about ATC/pilot voice communications and the issues pertaining to
miscommunications? 2) What approaches have been used to study miscommunications?
and 3) What research needs to be performed so that real solutions can be offered to the
aviation community? The emergent hypothesis was that miscommunications occur more
often when air traffic controllers experienced overload due to heavy traffic, frequency
congestion, and lengthy messages. Data in the studies presented was collected from
NASA Aviation Safety Reporting System (ASRS) forms, audiotape analysis, and
laboratory studies. The meta analysis compared and contrasted various taxonomies
including Kanki & Foushee's speech act coding scheme, Morrow, Rodvold, & Lee's
taxonomy of routine vs. non-routine transactions, and Cardosi & Boole's time
components in ATC/pilot verbal communications. The analysis concluded that audio
taped communications data bases could be helpful in post-communication analysis and a
globally implemented taxonomy for aviation speech acts should be established to report
findings in a uniform and systematic way for better comparison between studies.
Prinzo and Britton collaborated on the report; however, their analysis and
synthesis methods were not described. The study was descriptive in nature and did not
contribute any original research, as it only provided a synthesis of existing literature. It
did give an accurate picture of the research that had been conducted previous to the date
of publication regarding pilot/controller voice communications. No previous study had
Berns Prelim 4
offered such a comprehensive cross-study analysis.
Philips (1991)
Philips explored how official phraseology of air traffic communications differed
from natural English. He studied the official phraseology of the Civil Aviation Authority
Radiotelephony manual in addition to research from the Ecole Nationale de l'Aviation
Civile, Toulouse, France. The emergent hypothesis of the study was the International
Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) phraseology has a special purpose sub-grammar. The
corpus consisted of 541 phraseological utterances and 36 structural modifications. Philips
taxonomized and coded the phraseology and compared the sub-grammar to natural
English. He determined that aviation phraseology has two sub systems: 1) English as a
sub-grammar and 2) a context and domain dependent speech community.
The corpus samples were limited to European standards and thus do not
generalize to air traffic communications conducted in the United States. Although ICAO
proposes to be an international flight organization, it does not have any regulatory power
as an arm of the United Nations; therefore, international communications standards are
only advisory in nature. Standardization and usage of official phraseology was
determined via regulatory aeronautical manuals. Actual practical usage was not evaluated
and as such the applications for real-world communications were not addressed. The
study did highlight the need for a global topography or taxonomy of aviation phraseology
in order to better understand flight communications.
Berns Prelim 5
Morrow, Rodvold & Lee (1994)
The study used Clark & Schaefer's collaborative scheme (1987) as a framework to
organize what they termed "routine" and "non-routine" communications. The context and
participants consisted of a corpus of recordings of pilot and controller communications
gathered Three regions of the United States. Communication transactions were gathered
from West Coast, Midwest, and Southeast, level 5 Terminal Radar Control (TRACON)
centers. The emergent hypotheses was that non-routine transactions often lead to
miscommunications. While 42 hours of data were collected, only 12 hours were
"randomly selected" for analysis. Of this 12 hours, six were from approach frequencies
and six were from departure frequencies. A taxonomy based on the collaborative scheme
was used to code the transmissions. Analysis found 163 non-routine transactions with
understanding problems and 120 with information problems. It was concluded that non-
routine transactions decreased efficiency by focusing on resolving problems rather than
allowing for the presentation of new information.
The scope of the study was limited. While three regions of the country were
represented, the East Coast was not. I question why the Southeast was selected over the
East. The East has some of the busiest air space in the nation including New York City
and Washington, D.C. Without representation from this region, the study is not
generalizable to the entire U.S. Inter-rater reliability was accounted for by gaining
agreement (77% - 91%) on 15 transactions containing 149 speech acts; however, only two
raters coded the data. I would have preferred at least three raters if not more. The study
did demonstrate the applicability of the collaborative scheme for analysis of Air Traffic
Control communications.
Berns Prelim 6
Prinzo (1998)
Prinzo analyzed voice communications in a simulated approach control
environment to determine if workload effected the performance of air traffic controllers.
The study involved 24 full performance level controllers from two terminal radar
approach control (TRACON) facilities. Her emergent hypothesis was that controllers
under high stress or workload display higher vocal pitch, louder voice volume, and
increased rate of speech. Data was collected from both simulations and the field. The
simulation environment produced 13,900 transmission consisting of 33,000
communication elements. Field recordings consisted of 1900 transactions and 5,336
communication elements. VERBEX voice recognition software was used for initial
transcription of the recordings. The Aviation Topics Speech Acts Taxonomy (ATSAT)
was utilized to analyze communication elements. The study found similarities in
communication style between simulation and field recordings.
Participants in the study were primarily male with a male:female ratio of 9:1 at
TRACON 1 and 10:2 at TRACON 2. Sex of the controllers was not considered as a
covariate. There were limitations in the VERBEX voice recognition software, as the
system was unable to accommodate non-standard language beyond the restricted
phraseology of air traffic control. Natural language was therefore, not accounted for in the
study. The study did demonstrate that simulations can provide relatively equivalent
environments to real life TRACON situations. Simulators could be utilized for future
experimentation and training.
Berns Prelim 7
Morrow & Prinzo (1999)
Researchers hoped to gain insight into the presentation of information, specifically
looking at the effect of grouping or chunking information on memory capacity. The study
hypothesized that "grouped" information would reduce memory load of pilots. "Paid
volunteers" consisting of 21 males and 3 females were randomly assigned to "grouping"
or "control" groups. Other variables included instructional type and mission sequence for
simulation flights. Two days were devoted to the experiment with the first day including
pretesting and familiarization training. Pretesting consisted of a demographic
questionnaire and the administration of the Weschler Adult Intelligence Scales-Revised
sections including Forward Digit Span score and Backward Digit Span score. On the
second day, the missions were flown in a simulator which served as the post-test. During
these "missions" pilot and controller communications were recorded on audiotape. Voice
communications were analyzed by a primary coder who held a private pilot certificate.
One of the principal investigators served as a secondary coder. An analysis of variance
led to only two significant findings: 1) "grouped" information tended to be read back
sequentially: F (1,42) = 4.3, p < 0.5, and 2) "grouping" condition made fewer requests for
clarification: F (1,42) = 4.1, p<0.5. It was determined that the hypothesis was generally
not supported.
While the pretest may not have contributed to any practice effect, the
familiarization training may have done so. The first day's training included 20-25 minutes
of listening to air traffic control communications consisting of 70 multi-instruction
messages. This in combination with the training mission in the Basic General Aviation
Research Simulator (BGARS) may have predisposed participants to the types of
Berns Prelim 8
responses and simulator actions expected. Extraneous variables, such as age of the pilot
participants could have greatly impacted memory. Further studies could explore if longer
air traffic control messages overload pilot memory and if so, experiments could be done
with different message simplification schemes in a more controlled and systematic
environment. While not the intent of the study, it was demonstrated that training of pilots
in simulator situations may improve General Aviation pilot communications.
Morrow and Rodvold (1998)
Researchers provided an exceptionally detailed account of the current status of
communication in ATC operations. Research data in the literature involved NASA
Aviation Safety Reporting System (ASRS) forms, direct observation of routine operations
of randomly sampled ATC communications, full-mission simulation studies, and
modeling communication processes. The NASA forms were highlighted as a way for
pilots to anonymously report about potential problems in the air traffic system. These
forms also provide a way for pilots to confess system deviations and avoid reprimand,
unless the pilot knowingly violated Federal Aviation Regulations. Factors in ATC
communications were categorized as perceptual, linguistic, and collaborative. ATC
facility communications were compared and contrasted to controller-to-pilot interactions.
Messages could be misinterpreted due to the expectations, level of fatigue, experience,
and age of the receiver.
Possible Sampling Techniques
When choosing participants for my study, it will be important to get a
representative sample of the speech community of aviation English users. There are
several ways in which I could approach this endeavor.
Berns Prelim 9
I could choose critical case sampling which Patton (1990, p. 182) describes as a
method which “Permits logical generalization and maximum application of information
to other cases because if it's true of this one case it's likely to be true of all other cases.”
Another option is maximum variation sampling which “Documents diverse
variations and identifies important common patterns.”A similar but bolder alternative is
extreme or deviant case sampling characterized as “Learning from highly unusual
manifestations of the phenomenon of interest” (Marshall and Rossman, 1999, p. 78).
Following are example of possible applications for these sampling techniques in
an aviation communications setting. In using critical case sampling I could focus on
communications from airports which have busy international traffic with a high volume
of non-native English speaking pilots. The large volume of international traffic would
make miscommunications due to language constraints or lack of English proficiency
more probable than in airport facilities where international traffic is limited.
Maximum variation sampling would take a broader approach such as utilized in
the study by Douglas and Myers detailed later in this paper. In looking at English
proficiency levels, speakers at low, medium, and high performance categories could be
compared to find emergent patterns across levels.
Extreme or deviant case sampling could be employed to look at a specific
phenomenon or anomaly in aviation communications. Noble (1997) chose to use this
approach when studying Japanese student pilots in uncontrolled airspace in California's
uncontrolled airspace. With this sampling technique, a study is not generalizable beyond
the specific circumstances, in this instance region or ethnic group; however, important
trends may appear for further study in a broader context.
Berns Prelim 10
Possible Methods of Data Analysis
The collaborative scheme (Clark & Schaefer, 1987) could be used to determine
understanding between participants. (In my study the participants would consist of pilots
and controllers. Like the Directory Assistance Enquiries telephone study, I would code
transactions by content with the presentation phase and acceptance phase.
In the acceptance phase there would be three conditions: presupposing full
understanding, asserting full understanding, and requesting information needed for full
understanding.
I could also utilize Clark & Schaefer's contribution hierarchies:
• Every unit a speaker utters belongs to the presentation phase of some attempted
contribution.
• Every mutually accepted alternation in speakers initiates a new contribution.
• In many contributions, the acceptance phase is accomplished simply by the
same or next speaker continuing on.
• Every acceptance phase must end with a speaker presupposing acceptance by
continuing on.
I could create a taxonomy and coding system for cataloging and analyzing the
corpus based on prior aviation communication literature (Prinzo & Britton, 1993). I
would implement similar categories to those of Kanki & Foushee's (1989) speech act
coding scheme. These categories were specifically designed for aviation communications
and are included in the following example. Like Kanki & Foushee, I would create
definitions to correspond with each category. To more clearly illustrate such a taxonomy,
their coding scheme and definitions are listed below:
Berns Prelim 11
Command: A specific assignment of responsibility by one group member to
another
Observation: Recognizing and/or noting a fact or occurrence relating to the task
Suggestion: Recommendation for a specific course of action
Statement of Intent: Announcement of an intended action by speaker; includes
statements referring to present and future actions but not to previous actions
Inquiry: Request for factual, task-related information; not a request for action
Agreement: A response in concurrence with a previous speech act; a positive
evaluation of a prior speech act
Disagreement: A response not in concurrence with a previous speech act; a
negative evaluation of a speech act
Acknowledgment: a) Makes known that a prior speech act was heard; b) does not
supply additional information; c) does not evaluate a previous speech act
Answer: Speech act supplying information beyond mere agreement,
disagreement, or acknowledgement
Response Uncertainty: Statement indicating uncertainty or lack of information
with which to respond to a speech act
Tension Release: Laughter or humorous remark
Frustration/Anger/Derisive Comment: Statement of displeasure with self, other
persons, or some aspect of the task; or a ridiculing remark
Embarrassment: Any comment apologizing for an incorrect response
Repeat: Restatement of a previous speech act without prompting
Checklist: Prompts and replies to items on a checklist
Berns Prelim 12
Non-task Related: Any speech act referring to something other than the present
task
Non-codable: Speech act which is unintelligible or unclassifiable with respect to
the present coding scheme
ATC: Flight-crew radio communication with Air Traffic Control, dispatch, "the
company," etc.
Total Communication: Sum of all of the above
Since qualitative studies are emergent, I may find that my categories are not
mutually exclusive or sufficiently encompassing. Because of this, I will need to
continually evaluate my data and be flexible with my coding scheme to make sure that I
best describe the phenomenon.
Discourse Analysis
Depending on the academic discipline and theoretical lens employed by the
researcher, discourse analysis can be interpreted in different ways. Brown and Yule
(1983) offer a good definition of the general process by summarizing, “...the discourse
analyst treats his data as the record (text) of a dynamic process in which language was
used as an instrument of communication in a context by a speaker / writer to express
meanings and achieve intentions (discourse). Working from this data, the analyst seeks to
describe regularities in the linguistic realizations used by people to communicate those
meanings and intentions” (p., 26).
Berns Prelim 13
In regards to sociolinguistics, Stubbs (1983) noted that, “sociolinguistics will have
to incorporate analyses of how conversation works: that is, how talk between people is
organized; what makes it coherent and understandable; how people introduce and change
topics; how they interrupt, ask questions, and give or evade answers; and, in general, how
the conversational flow is maintained or disrupted” (p. 7).
Schiffrin (1994) described discourse in three ways: 1) the formalist view of
discourse as a unit of language above the sentence, 2) the functionalist view of discourse
as language in use, and 3) discourse as utterances or a collection of inherently
contextualized units of language use.
Schiffrin summarized theoretical frameworks and approaches to discourse:
Speech Act Theory
What people do with language.
(Searle and Austin)
Interactional Sociolinguistics
Concerned with culture, society, and language.
(Gumperz, Goffman, and Tannen)
Ethnography of Communications
Use of language in speech situations, events, and acts. Speech acts within speech
events.
(Hymes)
Pragmatics
Concerned with Cooperative Principal (CP) and speaker meaning.
(Grice)
Berns Prelim 14
Conversation Analysis
Derived from ethnomethodology. Analyzes the sequential progression of talk.
(Garfinkel, Goodwin, Schegloff, and Schultz)
Variation Analysis
Systematic investigation of a speech community which attempts to discover
linguistic change and variation.
(Labov)
As recommended by Schiffrin, I would use an interdisciplinary approach
combining the strengths best suited to describing my study from the aforementioned
theoretical frameworks rather than limit my scope to only one disciplinary lens.
Possible Theoretical Frameworks
Functionalism
Aviation communications occur via an interconnected group of systems. Systems
within the aviation industry include but are not limited to: flight crew, air traffic
management facilities, weather reporting facilities, airline dispatch units, and terminal
airport facilities. The structure and interrelated nature of these entities operated within a
functionalist paradigm. Mesthrie (2000) highlighted concepts of functionalism as
culture, socialization, norms and values, and status and role (pp. 29-30).
This order and stability is even reflected in the prescriptivist nature of the register
of aviation English. Not only is phraseology prescribed, but protocol for transactions
between pilots and air traffic controllers is rigid and interdependent on the cooperation of
others operating on the same radio frequency. Since communications can occur only one
way at a time, cooperation within the system is necessary for the efficient operation of
Berns Prelim 15
the larger structure as a whole. The ability to hear transmissions of other aircraft in the
area also promotes a greater understanding of situational awareness allowing pilots to
visualize the movements of local traffic.
Pragmatics
In terms of discourse analysis the researcher is less interested with the inter-
relationship of text than the relationship between speaker and utterance in the context of
use, in other words, what speakers and hearings are doing. This involves reference,
presupposition, implicature, and inference. These pragmatic concepts, along with context,
fall well within the functionalist paradigm as they all imply a common understanding,
conventional meaning, and presupposed expectations that are present in a interrelated
system.
Hymes (1964) stressed context has specific features which he termed addressor,
addressee, audience, topic, setting, channel, code, message-form, event, key, and
purpose. For example if the hearer has a prior knowledge of these elements, especially
addressor, audience, topic, and setting he will have expectations for the speech based on
previous experience. The more knowledge the hearer has, the more constrained these
expectations will be. The terms are intuitive except for “key” which Hymes used to refer
to something which entails evaluation (Brown & Yule, 1983, pp. 27-39).
Perspectivation
Perspectivation takes the idea of context more indepth by “contextualizing actual
events in the framework of relevant backgrounds and conditions.” While grounded in the
discipline of psychology and originating with the model of visual perception, the concept
of perceptivity was expanded to include cognitive functions as well. In linguistic study,
Berns Prelim 16
perspectivization includes the ideas of “having a perspective” or personal point of view,
“taking a perspective” or empathizing with another speaker, and “talking about or from a
perspective” in other words differentiating between ones own point of view and anothers
(Kallmyer, 2002, pp.114-7).
Ensink and Sauer (2003) get more specific and also add the concepts of “frame”
and “footing” to the idea of perspecitivisation. Frame can be used to structure time,
cognitive space, and knowledge. The definition of frame varies slightly between
disciplines and in reference to cognitive psychology the terms schema, demon, or script
may be used to refer to knowledge frames and the processes used for storage, retrieval,
perception, and comprehension. In discourse analysis, these knowledge frames are used to
contextualize perceived meaning. A person's background knowledge can influence that
person's expectations for a given situation.While some researchers consider “footing” just
another instance of “framing” the difference between the two is that “'footing' roughly
refers to the way in which the communicative participant (speaker or hear) is involved in
the situation and the ground for this way” (p. 8).
Interactional Sociolinguistics
Joan Cutting (2000) used an interdisciplinary approach to her longitudinal
research on in-group communications. Her study was primarily concerned with
interactional sociolinguistics (Goffman, 1963; Gumperz, 1982; Tannen, 1989) by
observing the language characteristics of static social group and examining the identities
and relationships of group members. However, she also incorporated theories from
philosophy in utilizing a framework of pragmatics (Grice, 1975; Leech, 1983; Levinson,
1983), ethnomethodological principles of conversation analysis (Garfinkel, 1967;
Berns Prelim 17
Jefferson, 1978; Sacks, 1972; Schegloff, 1968), and structural approach of variation
analysis (Labov, 1972). In utilizing the theoretical frameworks best suited to study the
phenomenon in an interdisciplinary manner, Cutting's study was not forced to be
evaluated by one less suitable disciplinary lens.
Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis
“Ethnomethodology gets at the norms, understandings, and assumptions that are
taken for granted by people in a setting because they are so deeply understood that people
don't even think about why they do what they do” (Patton, 1990, p. 74).
The protocol and routinization of aviation English amongst pilots and controllers
could definitely be viewed with the theoretical lens of ethnomethodology. If a corpora of
naturally occurring aviation communications is obtained for my study, this underlying
framework would be highly suitable to observe the almost reflex like transactions.
Ethnomethodology has also been characterized as assuming meaning and order in
everyday activity. In sociology and linguistics, conversation analysis shares this meaning
and order with basic assumptions according to Person (1999): “1) conversation is
meaningfully organized; 2) there is 'order at all points' in any conversational interaction;
3)conversational utterances are both context-shaped and context renewing; and 4)
everyday conversation is fundamental, so that the structure and organization of
conversation in institutional contexts are adapted from the structure and organization of
everyday conversation” (p. 2).
I believe adding the perspective of conversation analysis could enhance a study of
naturally occurring transactions between pilots and controllers beyond rote categorization
of speech acts and functions to incorporate negotiated meaning and context.
Berns Prelim 18
Collection and Analysis of Data
Depending on the nature of my study, I can collect data in varying manners. If
actual pilot and controller transactions are desired, I could request copies of ATC tapes
for transcription. If a simulation is involved, audio, and ideally video, recordings of
subjects performance would need to be analyzed. If a study similar to Douglas and Myer
(2000) is conducted, follow up interview sessions with subject matter experts evaluating
participants performance would need to be recorded, transcribed, and analyzed.
While occurring in the field of veterinary medicine, the methodology of the
aforementioned study could be transferred to examine professional discourse in aviation.
According to Douglas and Myers (2000)
“...professional development is just a specialized form of socialization, a
general process long recognized as the vehicle through which culturally specific
language, discourse, cognition, and skills are transmitted and developed through
social interaction. Competent professionals are able to articulate assessments of
language performances to colleagues and to the persons being assessed, the
criteria employed, and ways in which a performance might be improved. The
criteria are accessible to researchers primarily by means of an analysis of the
discourse in which they are displayed, and therefore the researchers will need to
engage in very careful study of the assessment interaction and discourse in the
target language use situation, with help from discourse analysts and from
specialists in the target field” (p. 61).
Berns Prelim 19
Transferring this concept to observations of aviation phraseology performance of
student pilots in crew resource management (CRM) simulations could provide a new
contribution to the aviation education, communications, and flight training literature.
Whether gathering data from actual ATC tapes, constructed transactions via
student performance flight simulation, or interviews with subject matter focus groups,
transcriptions will need to be made from audio and/or video recordings. There are many
different conventions for transcription of recordings of naturally occurring speech and
interview data. A good general guide is provided in the transcription design principles
suggested by DuBois (1991):
Category definition
• Define transcriptional categories which make the necessary distinctions
among discourse phenomena.
• Define sufficiently explicit categories.
• Define sufficiently general categories.
• Contrast data types.
Accessibility
• Use familiar notations.
• Use motivated notations.
• Use easily learned notations.
• Segregate unfamiliar notations.
• Use notations which maximize data access.
• Maintain consistent appearance across modes of access
Berns Prelim 20
Robustness
• Use widely available characters.
• Avoid invisible contrasts.
• Avoid fragile contrasts.
Economy
• Avoid verbose notations.
• Use short notations for high frequency phenomena.
• Use discriminable notations for word-internal phenomena.
• Minimize word-internal notations.
• Use space meaningfully.
Adaptability
• Allow for seamless transition between degrees of delicacy.
• Allow for seamless integration of user-defined transcription categories.
• Allow for seamless integration of presentation fixtures.
• Allow for seamless integration of indexing information.
• Allow for seamless integration of user-defined coding information.
Interview and Small Group Discussion Techniques
If my study follows the methodology of Douglas and Myer (2000) I would need to
conduct follow up small group discussions with subject matter experts. Gilbert (1993)
finds this technique valuable for consensus formation. This could be extremely helpful
when interviewing professionals with similar backgrounds as the group dynamics would
contribute to a more indepth understanding of phenomenon.
Berns Prelim 21
In recording the group discussions, it is important to consider microphone
placement in order to clearly capture of all participants dialogue. Notes about individual
participants utterances during the interview session may help later in coding of patterns
and themes. Video recordings can help to match speakers with utterances in the event that
several speakers have similar voices.
A formal interview guide would not be necessary in a study modeled after that of
Douglas and Myer (2000) as the viewing of student performance videos would guide the
discussion. In order to limit interviewer bias, it would be best to limit interaction with
subject matter experts, unless prodding and probing are necessary to illicit dialogue or the
group needs to regain focus.
Survey Data
Instruments such as NASA's ASRS forms are an example of existing survey data.
In the event that I choose to do an analysis of existing data, access would need to be
gained via the proper authorities. Limitations occur in using existing data as the data
collected may not appropriately address my research question. In the instance of ASRS
forms, data is de-identified and chunked into categories deemed useful by NASA for
analysis. If I need to gather data more specific to my own area of study, a survey
instrument may need to be created.
Ary, Jacobs, and Razavieh (1996) devoted an entire chapter to the best practices
for creation of survey instruments, modes of gathering data, selection of samples, and
appropriate statistical analysis. Depending on the goals of the study, an appropriate
instrument, typically an interview guide or questionnaire, would need to be developed
and pilot tested with a small group of subject matter experts to insure the validity and
Berns Prelim 22
reliability of the survey. This method is most appropriate for gaining large scale
information that is highly generalizable to the target population.
Conclusion
The nature of my research question will determine the best means of inquiry for
my dissertation. This paper has helped me to uncover different techniques which have
been employed in aviation research. I have also explored research methods and
theoretical frameworks from other academic areas. I believe the best approach for my
study will ultimately entail a multidisciplinary approach to research such as that of
Cutting (2000) which sought to borrow ideology from those fields which best addressed
her research agenda and provided the richest academic theoretical lens.
Berns Prelim 23
References
Ary, D., Jacobs, L.C., & Razavieh, A.(1996). Introduction to research in education (5th
ed.). Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace.
Brown, G., & Yule, G. (1983). Discourse Analysis. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Churcher, G. E., Atwell, E. S. & Souter, C. (1997). The semantic/pragmatic annotation of
an air traffic control corpus for use in speech recognition. In Ljung & Magnus
(Eds.), Corpus-based studies in English: Papers from the seventeenth
international conference on English language research on computerized corpora
(ICAME 17) Stockholm, May 15-19, 1996 (pp. 353-373). Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Clark, H. H. & Schaefer, E. F. (1987). Collaborating on contributions to conversations.
Language and Cognitive Processes, 2(1), 19-41.
Cutting, J. (2000). Analysing the language of discourse communities. Kidlington, UK:
Elsevier Science.
Douglas, D. (2000). Assessing language for specific purposes. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Douglas, D., & Myers, R. (2000). Assessing the communication skills of veterinary
students: Whose criteria? In Konnan, A. (Ed.), Fairness and validation in
language assessment: Selected papers from the 19th language testing research
colloquium, Orlando, Florida. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Edwards, J. A.,& Lampert, M.D. (Eds.). (1993). Talking data: Transcription and coding
in discourse research. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Berns Prelim 24
Ensink, T., & Sauer, C. (Eds.). (2003). Framing and perspectivising in discourse.
Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Gall, M. D., Gall, W. R., & Gall, J. P. (1996). Educational research: An introduction (6th
ed.). White Plains, NY: Longman.
Gilbert, N. (Ed.) (1993). Researching social life. London: Sage.
Kallmeyer, W. (2002). Verbal practices of perspective grounding. In Graumann, C. F., &
Kallmeyer, W. (Eds.). Perspective and perspectivation in discourse. Amsterdam,
The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (1999). Designing qualitative research (3rd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Mesthrie, R., Swann, J., Deumert, A., & Leap, W. L. (2000). Introducing
Sociolinguistics. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
Morrow, D., & Rodvold, M. (1998). Communications issues in Air Traffic Control. In M.
K. Smolensky & E. S. Stein (Eds.), Human factors in Air Traffic Control (pp.
421-456). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Morrow, D. G., Rodvold, M. & Lee, A. (1994). Nonroutine transactions in controller-
pilot communication. Discourse Processes, 17(2), 235-258.
Morrow, D. G. & Prinzo, O. V. (1999). Improving pilot/ATC voice communication in
general aviation. Washington, D.C.: FAA Office of Aviation Medicine. (NITS
No. DOT/FAA/AM-99/21).
Berns Prelim 25
Noble, C. E. (1997). The aviation English problem in America: Can a real-time based
flight simulator help? Paper presented at the Excellence in Aviation Award
Centers of Excellence Program Office, Atlantic City: NJ.
Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Newbury
Park, CA: Sage.
Person, R. F. Jr. (1999). Structure and meaning in conversation and literature. Lanham,
MD: University Press of America.
Philips, D. (1991). Linguistic security in the syntactic structures of air traffic control
English. English World-Wide, 12(1), 103-124.
Prinzo, O. V. (1998). An analysis of voice communication in a simulated approach
control environment. Oklahoma City, OK: FAA Civil Aeromedical Institute.
(NITS No. DOT/FAA/AM-97/17).
Prizno, O. V. (2001). Data-linked pilot reply time on controller workload and
communication in a simulated terminal option. Oklahoma City, OK: FAA Civil
Aeromedical Institute. (NITS No. DOT/FAA/AM-01/8).
Prinzo, O. V. & Britton, T. W. (1993). ATC/pilot voice communications: A survey of the
Literature. (NTIS No. DOT/FAA/AM-93/20).
Schiffrin, D. (1994). Approaches to discourse. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
Stubbs, M. (1983). Discourse analysis: The sociolinguistic analysis of natural language.
Chicago: The University Press of Chicago.
Varantola, K. (1989). Natural language vs. purpose-built languages: The human factor.
Neuphilologische Mitteilungen, 90(2), 173-183.