The Sociolinguistic Competence of Immersion Students

By Raymond Mougeon, Terry Nadasdi, Katherine Rehner

Multilingual Matters

Copyright © 2010 Raymond Mougeon, Terry Nadasdi and Katherine Rehner
All rights reserved.
ISBN: 978-1-84769-238-2

Contents

Tables and Figures,
Preface,
1 Introduction,
2 Methodology,
3 Variation in L1 Spoken French,
4 Students’ Learning of Variation,
5 The Potential Benefits of Increased FL1 Input in an Eductional Context,
6 Conclusion,
Appendices,
Notes,
References,

CHAPTER 1

Introduction

More than three decades of research focused on the second language outcomes of French immersion programs has produced a wealth of studies documenting the successes and limitations of French immersion students’ communicative proficiency [see notably Calvé (1991), Harley (1984), Lyster (2007) and Rebuffot (1993) for overviews]. For the most part, these studies have concentrated on grammatical competence, that is the receptive and productive knowledge of the target-language system, and to a lesser extent on discourse competence, that is the receptive and productive knowledge of coherent and cohesive target-language discourse. However, considerably less research has been devoted to French immersion students’ sociolinguistic competence, that is the receptive and productive knowledge of sociolinguistic variants and of the linguistic, social and stylistic factors that govern their usage.

The goal of this volume is to bring together and discuss from both a theoretical and applied perspective the results of a research project that focuses on the acquisition of sociolinguistic competence by French immersion students. In so doing, we hope to make a significant contribution to this understudied aspect of French immersion students’ communicative competence. In the chapters that follow, sociolinguistic competence will be examined in relation to the learner’s knowledge of sociolinguistic variation. More specifically, we will be assessing the extent to which French immersion students master a full repertoire of sociolinguistic variants, acquire their discursive frequency and observe the same linguistic and extralinguistic constraints on variant choice adhered to by first language (L1) speakers of French. We will also assess the extent to which the French immersion students’ learning of sociolinguistic variation is affected by a number of crucial independent variables (e.g. the learners’ extra-curricular exposure to L1 French and the treatment of sociolinguistic variation in the educational input of the French immersion students). It should be pointed out at the outset that the present volume constitutes a unique and original contribution to research on the learning of sociolinguistic competence by advanced second language learners in an educational setting. To our knowledge, there has not been any book written on this topic before and the findings reported upon in the present volume are based on more than a dozen detailed studies on the learning of a wide range of sociolinguistic variants pertaining to the different components of language (phonology, lexicon, morphology and morphosyntax). Furthermore, ours is the only research of which we are aware that investigates the effect of educational input on learners’ socio-linguistic competence.

Before we provide more specific information about the goals and methodology of our research, we will situate the research on the learning of sociolinguistic competence by advanced second language learners in the broader fields of variationist sociolinguistics and second language acquisition (SLA) research. We will also provide a state-of-the-art review of studies that have focused specifically on the acquisition of sociolinguistic competence by advanced learners of French as a second language.

Sociolinguistic Variation in First Language Speech Communities

Language variation is observable in all components of every human language (syntax, morphology, lexicon and phonology). It involves an alternation between different elements of a given language whose meaning (or phonological status, if they are sounds) is identical. There are two types of language variation: linguistic and sociolinguistic. With linguistic variation, the alternation between elements is categorically constrained by the linguistic context in which they occur. With sociolinguistic variation, speakers can choose between elements in the same linguistic context and, hence, the alternation is probabilistic. Furthermore, the probability of one form being chosen over another is also affected in a probabilistic way by a range of extra-linguistic factors [e.g. the degree of (in)formality of the topic under discussion, the social status of the speaker and of the interlocutor, the setting in which communication takes place, etc.].

An example of linguistic variation is the grammatical notion of plurality in spoken English, which can be conveyed by various affixes whose use is constrained categorically by the linguistic context in which they occur: finger versus fingers [z]; cheek versus cheeks [s]; bridge versus b ridges [‘z]; foot versus feet; ox versus oxen, etc. By ‘constrained categorically’ we mean that in a given linguistic context L1 speakers of English will always use the same form to convey a notion. Thus, in the above example, with nouns that end in a voiceless consonant, L1 speakers will always use the plural affix [s], with nouns that end in a voiced occlusive consonant, they will always use the affix [z], etc. An example of linguistic variation in French is the alternation between full and contracted forms of the definite article. The full form occurs before all consonant initial nouns (e.g. le livre ‘the book’ and la table ‘the table’), whereas the contracted form is found categorically before words beginning with a vowel (e.g. l’avion ‘the plane’ and l’assiette ‘the plate’). In linguistics, the different forms that speakers alternate between are referred to as ‘variants’ and the notion they convey is referred to as the ‘variable’.

An example of sociolinguistic variation is the -ing variable, which involves the alternation between two pronunciations of the final sound of English words ending in -ing, such as morning, nothing and doing (e. g. good morning [n] versus [n] or nothing [n] versus [n]). L1 speakers of English tend to use variant [n] more frequently when -ing occurs in verbal forms, as in he’s eatin’, than in nouns, such as morning or Kipling, where it is less likely to occur (a probabilistic linguistic constraint), see Houston (1985). L1 speakers of English also use [n] more often when discussing an informal topic, telling a funny story, etc. or if they hail from the lower social strata (probabilistic extra-linguistic constraints), see Trudgill (1974) and Downes (1998). A similar example from French is the variable use or non-use of /l/, which is also influenced by linguistic and extra-linguistic constraints. L1 speakers of Canadian French delete /l/ much more frequently when it occurs in a subject pronoun (e.g. i(l) faut ‘it is necessary’) than in definite articles (e.g. dans (l)a cave ‘in the basement’). Also, male speakers and speakers from the lower social strata tend to delete /l/ more often than female speakers and speakers from the upper social strata (across all linguistic contexts), see Sankoff and Cedergren (1976) and Poplack and Walker (1986). It should be noted that these probabilistic linguistic and extra-lingusitic constraints are shared across speakers in a given speech community and are a feature of their native language competence. Furthermore, to distinguish the variants that are involved in linguistic variation from those involved in sociolinguistic variation, the former can be referred to as ‘linguistic variants’ and the latter as ‘sociolinguistic variants’. Likewise, the notions conveyed by linguistic variants are, as pointed out above, referred to as linguistic variables, while the notions expressed by sociolinguistic variations are referred to as sociolinguistic variables.

Sociolinguistic variants are of special interest to linguists and language educators because they can be used as markers of style or register, social status, group membership, etc. For instance, returning to the ing variable, speakers of English may elect to use variant [n] along with other informal variants (e.g. informal content or grammatical words such as pal for friend, juice for electricity, gonna for going to, etc.) to reduce the psychological distance between themselves and their interlocutors, to impart a humoristic tone to their speech, etc., and, in contrast, they may choose to use [?] and the other formal variants mentioned above to heighten the psychological distance, to show respect to their interlocutor, because they are delivering a formal speech, etc.

Given that the use of sociolinguistic variants is governed by a complex set of linguistic and extra-linguistic factors, sociolinguistic variation presents a special challenge to L2 learners and consequently it is, as a rule, introduced late, if at all, in L2 syllabi. Be that as it may, because sociolinguistic variation is commonplace and because it is a crucial property of all human languages, L2 learners must come to grips with it sooner or later in their learning of the target language. Therefore, it is important to conduct research on the learning of sociolinguistic variation by such learners, which could bring to light useful data for program assessment, curriculum and materials development and implementation. It is precisely this type of research that the present volume reports upon.

Variation in Second Language

Research on the learning of sociolinguistic variation by L2 learners is part of a large body of research investigating various dimensions of the communicative competence of L2 learners, a concept originally defined by Canale and Swain (1980) and refined and further developed by others (e.g. Bachman, 1987; Brown, 1987). Within this body of research, the study of the learning of sociolinguistic variation is usually recognized as belonging to the set of studies that investigates the sociolinguistic competence of L2 learners. Interestingly, research on the learning of sociolinguistic variation, as we have just defined it, by L2 learners has only recently developed. Prior to this, numerous studies investigated the variable nature of the interlanguage of L2 learners (e.g. Dickerson, 1974; Ellis, 1987; Gatbonton, 1978; Huebner, 1983, 1985; Tarone, 1988). They focused on L2 learners’ alternation between native and non-native usages or between more than one non-native usage to express a given notion, and not on L2 learners’ use of sociolinguistic variants. For instance, Gass and Selinker (2001, p. 254) provide examples of alternating forms of native and non-native interrogative sentences in the past tense documented in the speech of a young Japanese learner of English as a second language (e.g. *Do you saw these peppermint?; Did you see the ghost?; *What do you do?; What did you do?). Such alternations represent a transitional stage before the L2 learners use the native forms categorically.

In order to avoid confusion between sociolinguistic variation, as is observable in L1 speech, and variable interlanguage production, some SLA researchers have referred to the latter as ‘variation along the vertical continuum’ (see Andersen, 1981; Corder, 1981; Young, 1988) and to the former as ‘variation along the horizontal continuum’ (Corder, 1981; Young, 1988). In our own work, we refer to the first type of variation as Type 1 variation and the latter as Type 2 variation (Rehner, 2002, 2004), terminology that has been adopted by researchers such as Dewaele (2004a) and Bayley and Regan (2004).

Because Type 1 variation involves forms that are, for the most part, quite predictable and because such forms express the same notion, previous SLA research on variable interlanguage adopted some of the constructs of variationist sociolinguistics (e.g. the use of the term ‘variant’ to refer to both the native and non-native forms). One important contribution of this variable interlanguage research was to show that the L2 learners’ alternations between native and non-native usages evolve through time. Thus non-native usages decrease in frequency and eventually disappear as learners progress in their learning of the target language, and they undergo qualitative changes (e.g. become more complex or closer to the target). This research also showed that the frequency of use of native and nonnative usages is simultaneously influenced by linguistic factors and by some of the same extra-linguistic factors that have been found to have an impact on sociolinguistic variation in L1 speech varieties (e.g. differences based on the nature of the communicative tasks learners performed in their L2). Obviously factors that apply only to L2 learners were also found to be influential (e.g. input, time spent learning the target language, and transfer from the L1 of the learners to their L2). For an overview of such research, the reader is directed to, among others, Adamson (1988), Beebe (1988), Ellis (1999), and Tarone (1988, 1990).

Without denying the significance of research on Type 1 variation, it remains that this research has largely ignored Type 2 variation, that is to say the investigation of sociolinguistic variation by L2 learners. There are two main reasons for this. Firstly, this research is not necessarily focused on aspects of the target language where L1 speakers alternate between variants. Furthermore, when this research happens to examine such alternations (e.g. contracted versus non-contracted forms of English copula to be – I’m versus I am), it rarely investigates the learning of these alternations from within the perspective of variationist sociolinguistics. Thus, there was a gap in the field of SLA research that the new strand of studies on the learning of sociolinguistic variation by L2 learners has begun to fill. More specifically, this new strand of research focuses exclusively on sociolinguistic variables within the target language and investigates learners’ mastery of such variables. What is of interest, though, is that in their investigation of the learning of socio-linguistic variation these new studies have documented nonnative variants, in addition to native ones (e.g. the nonnative use of a construction like *à ma maison that alternates with two native variants, namely chez moi and à la maison – all three variants meaning ‘to/at my house’). These non-native variants are not unlike the non-native forms investigated in research on Type 1 variation and their presence in the speech of L2 learners raises issues similar to those examined in that research (e.g. What are their sources?; What factors promote their fossilization or disappearance?). Thus it is clear that while this new strand of research brings with it significant innovations, it cannot ignore the findings of the research on variable interlanguage that has paved the way for it.

Research on the Learning of Sociolinguistic Variation by Second Language LearnersMethodology

Studies on the learning of sociolinguistic variation by L2 learners, like the research presented in this volume, have, for the most part, been conducted within the framework of ‘variationist sociolinguistics’. This discipline was established by William Labov in the late 1960s and early 1970s. Labov (1966, 1972) conducted a series of seminal studies on the patterns of sociolinguistic variation observable in the varieties of English spoken in urban settings in the United States. Labov’s work spurred further research on sociolinguistic variation in other varieties of English and in varieties of French, Spanish and Portuguese notably in the Americas but also in Europe during the 1970s and 1980s. Thanks to this research, we now possess a great wealth of detailed information on numerous aspects of socio-linguistic variation that can be found in the above-mentioned languages. Not only does this information document the specific variants used by L1 speakers of these languages, it also sheds light on how sociolinguistic variation is influenced by linguistic and extra-linguistic factors. Such information provides us with a better understanding of what it is that L2 learners would likely have encountered when interacting with L1 speakers, at least as far as languages like English, French, Spanish and Portuguese are concerned. That said, the use of corpus-based data on L1 sociolinguistic variation for the purpose of descriptive research does not entail that one should impose L1 sociolinguistic norms on L2 learners in a pedagogical context. In our view, this is a separate question that we will address in Chapters 5 and 6. The fact remains that one needs descriptive benchmarks when conducting research on the learning of sociolinguistic variation.

The main goal of these studies is to focus on specific sociolinguistic variables and to verify if L2 learners (1) use the same range of variants as do L1 speakers; (2) use these variants with similar levels of frequency as do L1 speakers; (3) adhere to the same kinds of linguistic and extra-linguistic constraints on sociolinguistic variation observable in L1 speech; and (4) use non-native variants (i.e. forms that are not used by L1 speakers of the target language). The second goal of these studies is to examine the effect of independent variables on these four dimensions of the learning of sociolinguistic variation. These independent variables involve factors such as (1) length of exposure to the target language; (2) opportunities to interact with L1 speakers; (3) influence of inter-systemic factors (e.g. influence of the learner’s L1); (4) influence of intra-systemic factors (e.g. markedness of the variants); (5) influence of the learner’s social characteristics (e.g. social standing, sex and age); and (6) influence of educational input, a variable that is particularly relevant when the L2 is learned in a classroom setting.

(Continues…)Excerpted from The Sociolinguistic Competence of Immersion Students by Raymond Mougeon, Terry Nadasdi, Katherine Rehner. Copyright © 2010 Raymond Mougeon, Terry Nadasdi and Katherine Rehner. Excerpted by permission of Multilingual Matters.
All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.