Sociolinguistic Variation in Learners' Classroom
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Volume 4, Nomor 1, Mei 2019 p-ISSN: 2502-7069; e-ISSN: 2620-8326 SOCIOLINGUISTIC VARIATION IN LEARNERS’ CLASSROOM DISCOURSE Syahdan1*, Lalu Muhaimi2, M. Fadjri3, Untung Waluyo4 1,2,3,4 Faculty of Teachers Training and Education, University of Mataram *Email: [email protected] Received : May 02th, 2019 Accepted : May 20th, 2019 Published : May 30th, 2019 Abstract : This study investigates the use of the sociolinguistic variation in classroom discourse by learners of English as a foreign language. By using qualitative descriptive method, this study finds out that (a) sociolinguistic variation tends to be used more in informal speech than in formal settings; (b) higher English proficiency and frequent interaction with peers in the classroom and with native speakers of English promote the appropriate contextual usage of sociolinguistic variation; and (c) females tend to adopt more formal language style than males. This study also finds that learners’ patterns of sociolinguistic variation closely follow those of their teachers and textbooks, suggesting the necessity of explicit instruction in sociolinguistic variants in classrooms. Keywords : sociolinguistics; sociolinguistic variation; inter-language; language acquisition. INTRODUCTION between variable linguistic forms are systematically constrained by multiple linguistic It is not uncommon to find that even after and social factors that reflect underlying many years of classroom language learning grammatical systems and that both reflect and experiences, second language learners often find partially constitute the social organization of the it difficult to produce sociolinguistically communities to which users of the language appropriate speech in authentic situations. belong.” Therefore, in recent decades, the development of The other consideration for studying learners’ sociolinguistic competence, that is, “the sociolinguistic variation in the context of ability to recognize and produce contextually language acquisition is that examining this appropriate language” (Lyster, 1993: 36). This language variation helps to understand learners’ later has become a key issue and various competence in inter-language or speech actions. sociolinguistic approaches, including the In this context, there are two basic assumptions in variationist approach, have increasingly attracted sociolinguistic variation studies in language the attention of scholars in second language acquisition. First, inter-language variation, like acquisition (SLA). Variationist researchers have variation in native languages, is highly systematic convincingly argued that the acquisition of instead of random; and, second, inter-language is patterns of target language variation is an an entity that shares equal status to and is, to some indispensable part of sociolinguistic competence. extent, independent of learners’ first and second In other words, the ability to style-shift languages (Chambers, 2003). For example, appropriately and consistently in accordance with Bortoni-Ricardo (1997) completed the first different social contexts is assumption of variationist study in language one aspect of sociolinguistic competence that acquisition by examining phonological learners need to acquire. variability in the speech of Japanese speakers of The basic underlying assumption of English. She found that learners produced more variation approach which underlines this current target-like variants in situations in which they study is that sociolinguistic variation in language were able to monitor their speech, such as reading use is not random but highly systematic and word lists, and fewer target-like forms in characterized by orderly heterogeneity. As situations in which they were less able to monitor Bayley (2002: 117) explained, “speakers’ choices their speech, such as free speech. Following 57 Syahdan, , 4 (1) : 57 – 60 p-ISSN: 2502-7069; e-ISSN: 2620-8326 Dickerson, more and more studies in SLA on variation, with an inverse relationship between variation in inter-language were carried out, proficiency and sociolinguistic variations especially in recent decades (Dewaele, 2004; production. This finding conforms with the Mougeon, Rehner, and Nadasdi, 2004). These findings of previous studies (such as studies on sociolinguistic variation have Ghafarsamar, 2000) that also found a significant indicated that it has increasingly become an effect of proficiency level in L2 learners’ use of important subject of investigation in both SLA target forms, with higher proficiency learners and sociolinguistics. producing more target-like forms than less proficient learners. Because the learners involved RESEARCH METHOD in this study are all rather advanced, the effect of proficiency is not very robust but still significant, The design of this study is primarily and proficiency was found to interact with gender qualitative descriptive in which the description of and the functions of the sociolinguistic variations the qualitative data is supported by the being used in the classroom discourses. quantitative data. The use of qualitative One of the interesting findings suggests descriptive method here is motivated by the fact that gender is one of the important factors that that qualitative methodology is the most widely reached significance. Within the same used method in sociolinguistic variation studies proficiency group, females tended to use and has proven to be quite efficient and sociolinguistic variations more than males did. It successful in understanding and analyzing inter- is in some ways surprising and in other ways language. However, quantification of some expected to find gender difference in learners’ use factors are required to support the real social of sociolinguistic variations. The gender practices, which call for the addition of a difference is surprising because sociolinguistic qualitative component. For example, when variation is not a gender-salient marker. It is also determining the variable of proficiency level, this found that male and female learners used study used class placement in combination with sociolinguistic variation differently only in two observations and discussion with the teachers function conditions, that is, genitive marker and because class placement alone could not always when sociolinguistic variation constructions are tell a complete story. Sometimes, the learners followed by a demonstrative and classifier came into a certain class or subject from the very phrase. There is no existent evidence to indicate beginning level and progressed all the way that the use of sociolinguistic variation is an index through to the advanced levels, but their actual for gender. However, the gender difference is, to proficiencies were better described as high- a degree, expected because learners may notice intermediate. different gender speech styles. Furthermore, participant observation in the In addition, the results of the analysis of the classrooms and extracurricular activities helped transcribed data indicate that sociolinguistic constantly modify and reconstruct interview variations are used more often in informal questions in order to elicit natural speech data situations, as in classroom settings in the forms of from the participants. Recording the students’ learners’ speech by using tag questions. Learners conversations during the classroom interactions, may recognize the stylistic difference and both with peers and instructors of four classes consider the speech style used in classrooms as during classroom teachings was done. This is more standard or correct. In addition, language intended to get the data that were analyzed for the learners usually tend to follow prescriptive norms purpose of examining the effect of teachers’ input of language use strictly, among whom female on learners’ use of sociolinguistic variations. The learners might be more attuned to prescriptive textbooks used in the four classes were also norms and formal language styles than male collected for analysis in order to examine the learners. Therefore, a feminine preference of effect of educational input besides teachers’ more formal and standard speech styles, which speech on learners’ competence on the use of has been widely documented in other research sociolinguistic variations. studies (Major, 2004), was also found in this study. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Because so many factors seem to be operating in learners’ use of target-like variable Proficiency level was found to be significant in usage, gender difference in inter-language use learners’ competence in using sociolinguistic can be interpreted as a gender dichotomy. There 58 Syahdan, , 4 (1) : 57 – 60 p-ISSN: 2502-7069; e-ISSN: 2620-8326 may be many factors other than those explored in complexities of linguistic features to demonstrate the current study that also interact with gender, variation, motivated by the concern that they such as personality, educational level, age, social might confuse learners or fail to convey accurate status, and so on. This might be attributed to the information. So, teachers very often choose to fact that classrooms are formal situations in direct the students to a clear-cut and easy, or which teachers deliberately adopt a more formal “safer,” way of using certain language features speech style. Moreover, language teachers are that actually require a richer and much more professionals of language (Halliday, 1977) who detailed explanation. By so doing, teachers are are predicted to use standard variants more than actually leaving the task