Stephen van Vlack

Sookmyung Women`s University

Graduate School of TESOL

Second Language Learning Theories

Spring 2007

Week 12 - Answers

M&M, Chapter 8: Sociolinguistic perspectives

1. How does variability manifest itself in language and how can this be studied and explained?

Before we begin our discussion of variability in second language learning it should first be clear that all users of language can and will use different structures for both similar and different purposes. This is an important aspect of language and may even be one of the most unique and, therefore, defining characteristics of natural human language. Variation is a constant and those who are not capable of some degree of variation are generally seen as being deficient in their language skill (although we often don`t consciously realize this). In fact most productive proficiency tests measure proficiency in relation to variability and accuracy. In a very general sense, the higher the language user`s proficiency the more acceptable variability they demonstrate. It should also be made clear that variability exists on all levels of linguistic structure. Language users vary aspects of their pronunciation, make complex morphological and lexical choices, as well as syntactic decisions and, moving higher up the chain, discourse choices. Looking at language production in this way we see that it is largely a matter of making choices from an impossibly vast array of possible options. The more options one has internalized and the more one understands about them, the more the user can effectively vary the language they produce and the better their overall language use will be because their language use will be much more fine-tuned to their own internal state.

In addition to cognitively controlled variability, as described in brief above, variability can also occur without conscious control (Liberman, 1996). This is a widely acknowledged phenomenon in the production of phonemic segments. It appears that speakers do not produce the same phonemes the exactly same way each time they speak but are often not consciously trying to change or alter the way they produce these sounds. In fact, when even trying to produce the same sound in the sae way they there is still variability (Johnson & Mullennix, 1997). When we consider that utterances are composed invariably of multiple phonemes then almost every utterance produced varies form all its predecessors. It is this fact which has made the development of reliable speech recognition technology a tremendous challenge.

In the area of second language learning, variability has been looked at from a very narrow and, at this point, not surprisingly negative point of view. The basic idea behind variability in the SLA tradition is that second language users tend to vary structural aspects of their production (variability in inflectional morphology is often studied). This has often been thought of as mistakes (Ellis, 1994) but taken from a sociolinguistic point of view it is variability (Bayley & Preston, 1996). Variability is based on the idea that all language is indeed variable and all language users show variability in their speech forms. Adult native speakers vary their forms according to several different concerns, but is important to remember that variation among adults is predominantly cognitively controlled and, therefore, patterned.

Variation among language learners, on the other hand, is both patterned and unpatterned. This is where variation becomes then very important for second language studies. First of all we need to figure out what the pattern, if there is one, is based on; that is, what affects it. And also if the variation is unpatterned why is this so? In second language learning, then, the question of whether variability is really unpatterned becomes a hugely important question on a theoretical level. If variability (mistakes) are unpatterned or free then there might not be an interlanguage system controlling and regulating everything. Thus, in SLA variability has become a battleground upon which the role, shape, and possible existence of interlanguage is fought. In this way, real variability from a sociolinguistic perspective is often lost to most SLA researchers.

It is important to remember that children learning their first language also go through stages of tremendous variability. In first acquisition studies this variability has become an even more vicious battleground for the very existence of UG and/or the way UG develops/works in children in relation to different kids of categories (functional -vs- lexical) (Tomasello & Bates, 2001). So, variability is a battle that is occurring both in first and second language acquisition in a remarkably similar fashion with little awareness from either group.

2. What are the basic findings of studies done on second language socialization?

The basic idea is that language is a product of social interaction and the greater the amount of social interaction the more one will be able to socialize. It should be acknowledged that in this socialization view language learning, like in the sociocultural models, it must be understood that learning, or acquisition if you will, can only be achieved in through real interactions in richly defined contexts. The findings of second language studies focusing on socialization make similar claims to ones in the sociocultural tradition. This is because in both language use is seen as being culturally mediated. It occurs in culturally embedded settings and, therefore, must match the culture in which it is embedded. Thus, learners need to become familiar with how language is used in contextualized societal settings.

Such a view is being supported inadvertently by recent research into the origins of language (Tomasello, 1999). The basic idea underlying some recent origin research is that it can be linked to language acquisition in the same way that the development of human fetus reveals our evolutionary development. Basically put, the acquisition of language may follow the same developmental path as language itself as it developed as a specific system in the human brain. The two areas of investigation (language acquisition and language origins) can be used to complement each other. Now, how this relates to the socialization models of second language learning is simple. When we think about the possible reasons for language to involve in humans all of the reasons are social. Based on this and the belief that the language acquisition process may reveal the evolutionary development of language, it seems then a socialization view has a lot of validity.

In one influential view of the origin of language, held by Chomsky and his followers, language evolved in one brief instant on the back of socialization. The alternative view is that it developed over time making incremental changes (fueled by social need) which added onto each other each time resulting in language as we know it (Maybe!!). Language essentially developed in stages where it became increasingly complex and arbitrary based on more sophisticated needs which developed over on tip of each other, much like we see in language acquisition (Knight et al., 2000). In this view language does not occur in an internal cognitive vacuum. It occurs in and through socialization. We use and learn language use through patterns of socialization in our interactions with others. In this view, you may have noticed we have been careful not to comment on the cognitive systems which may or may not support language. There may or may not be something like UG, but the point in these socialization models is that global performance in the social setting (not necessarily solely in relation to forms) is of paramount importance. This is one thing that all researcher working in the socialization tradition agree on regardless of their beliefs in relation to the internal cognitive system, something which most of them know little about.

Again, though, since linguists and, sadly, language learning researchers alike tend to equate language with grammar we also find researchers in the socialization tradition also trying to link socialization to the acquisition of grammar. In a way this is inevitable because it is the only way to achieve perceived validity and recognition from the SLA community at large. Following this though there have not been very many studies and their results are less than conclusive. Still, such studies have shed important light on language acquisition as a more integrated process. In addition the previously unnoticed concepts of language accommodation and appropriation were brought to light.

3. How do the ideas of speech community and power relations affect L2 use and development?

This is where we can see some of the usefulness of this approach to second language learning. One of the main differentiations between first and second language learning, reportedly, is variation. Second language learning is often described as a process which differs for each person according to a wide variety of variables both internal (cognitive) and external (social). It is view of people working in this sociolinguistic tradition that the two are not mutually exclusive as has often been claimed from Chomskian linguists. The way the speech community in SLA and the classroom in FLA are set up does seem to play a role in the learning process as regards not only practice but outcomes. Different communities work very differently in the opportunities they give learners in being able to access the target language the bottom line being that less access equals less learning. Of course there are also different kinds of access, from access related to meaningful practice to access related to forms. It should not be surprising either that there is direct correlation between access and power. Access is not something often willingly granted by caring individuals to all equally. Even teachers who strive to have a classroom community which gives students power and access to the target language, and there are few enough of these, are not able to ensure that all students will have equal power in the classroom. Access to things like power is not something that can be given so much as it needs to be taken. Classrooms in FLA-like communities in SLA necessarily involve conflict; conflict between the teacher and the students, native speakers and non-native speakers as well as between different learners exist. Nor can we forget the conflict between learners L1 and L2 or TL identities. It is in this way that the community itself can play such an important role in the learning.

For us in Korea we can think that the more power the teacher wields the less the students will necessary learn because the teacher is limiting access to the language. This is the conduit in full swing where the teacher controls access by collectively spoon feeding the students. All access needs to move through the teacher because the teacher controls everything including or especially evaluation. This creates an environment of access starved or access ambivalent students. Power relations among the students then also become heightened because everybody is scrambling for a longer or more frequent taste of the spoon in the probably correct belief that this will ensure them a better grade.

I think it is a really good idea to look at your classroom as a community and evaluate it like you would a society at large. If you did this how well do you think your classroom would measure up? Would you like to live in your classroom? If not then think of what you can do to make your classroom community more productive. Teaching is nothing less than social engineering and teaching a foreign language even more so because what you do in the classroom affects what your students think or do not think about the world at large. Languages are that important. We need to get used to the idea that language learning is not a strictly internal process which feeds on erroneous unconnected information bits we can supply to our students and has little effect on other areas of cognition or personality. We need to think of classrooms as dynamic settings or resources which students need to be trained to use effectively in collaboration with their peers and their teachers. The tighter the control any one person has the less will actually go on internally.

4. How does the social identity and self-esteem of the learner affect L2 acquisition and use?

We all have identities in relation to the situations we find ourselves. It should be acknowledged that we all possess multiple identifies which apply in different situations. It is inevitable that a learner`s identity will be different in the TL than in his or her L1 and this identity will shift according to what they are doing or who they are doing it with. This is similar to the idea put forth by Guiora (1981) about the language ego. If the results of the comprehensive exams is anything to go by however, students are still confused by this. One of the main problems that seems to arise is understanding that each person has many separate egos and that these egos may or may not affect each other. Thus, a strong L1 language ego does not necessarily transfer into a strong L2 language ego. A person`s L2 language ego is going to be constructed based on their experience in the L2 and this experience is obviously tempered primarily by the interactions they have had with others in societal settings. Again, we come crashing up against the idea that all of this is internal. It is NOT. Internal states are created from external interactions.

Thus when we look at self-esteem and identity in relation to the L2 it is based directly on what has happened to these people in their attempts to access and use the target language. The two things to remember are this. First, self-esteem and identity are related to language use or the lack thereof. If students are not given opportunities to engage the world with the target language or even engage the target language they will not have any identity and hence no self-esteem in relation to the target language. Second, self-esteem and identity have a huge effect on performance and performance has a huge effect on competence. There is no real competence without performance. Based on all this we need to give our students chances to use the language and be successful in such usage. This does not mean that all students need to be successful at the same level but they need to be successful in relation to themselves and their past usages. Really, students should only be in competition with themselves not with anyone else. That is the only fair way of assessing students and it also happens to be a way to get each student to develop her or his own identity with the target language.

5. What is affect and what are its main effects on the learning process?

Affect is a blanket term used to describe the whole gamut of emotionally-related variables to language learning. This is one things that differentiates subsequent language acquisition form primary language acquisition the idea being that the older one becomes the more developed one is emotionally. These emotions can work for or against us in language learning,.As teachers we need to try to get our students` emotions to work for them, but as was mentioned above, we cannot do this unless they do things with the language. Emotional states are not born, they are created over time and they have a huge affect on the learning process. Simply looking at attention we can easily see how affective variables play an important role in directing attention and, going further, noticing. We generally think of motivation as being one of the man pats of affect, but we need to recognize that motivation, too, is determined by societal factors as well as personal factors and the two blend together. Again,. This is because people are all part of some society and everything we do takes place in some sort of social setting. Thus it is in society that our affective side is created and maintained.

6. What is the main crux of sociolinguistic approaches to SLA?

The main crux of all the sociolinguistic approaches is that language evolved for and develops in social settings from interaction. We cannot separate language learning from the setting in which it occurs and the purposes for which it occurs. While many of these researchers do not flat out reject the possibility of inborn cognitive structures which help language acquisition, such as UG, they do reject the strict differentiation of competence and performance held by Chomsky. The bottom line is that social variables effect not only performance but also competence in that language must be acquired in social settings/ These social settings have been shown to affect the type of language acquired in subsequent language situations. This is really what it is all about for these socially-oriented researchers.

References

Bayley, R. And D. Preston. (Eds). (1996). Second language acquisition and linguistic variation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Ellis, Rod. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Guiora, A. (1981). Language, personality and culture. or the Whorfian hypothesis revivified. In M. Hines and amd W. Rutherford. (Eds.). On TESOL `81. Washington, DC.: TESOL.

Knight, C., J. Hurford, and M. Studdert-Kennedy. (2000). The evolutionary emergence of language: Social function and the origins of linguistic form. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Johnson, K. And J. Mullennix. (Eds.) (1997). Talker variability in speech processing. San Diego: Academic Press.

Liberman, A. (1996). Speech: A special code. Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press.

Tomasello, M. (1999). The cultural origins of human cognition. Cambridge, MA.: Harvard University Press.

Tomasello, M. and E. Bates. (Eds.). (2001). Language development. Malden, MA.: Blackwell.