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 of noticing, trial-and- other professionals and, consequently, are error, hypothesizing, and then possibly acquiring especially justified to prescriptive norms of the language forms to learners themselves in real- language use. It might also be possible that life interactions. teachers are, to some extent, trying to It is suggested that such strategy of accommodate the students. Whatever the reasons, avoiding formal instruction of variability does not the types and patterns of sociolinguistic help students to find “safety”; rather, it puts them variations use in the learners’ educational input is in a more “dangerous” situation because very different from the speeches that are sometimes errors in the variable usage of certain produced in everyday interactions. language forms might result in stylistic inappropriateness or misunderstanding between Implications for Classroom Language interlocutors. In addition, it can take a very long Instructions time for learners to acquire the sociolinguistic variation merely from authentic interactions with As mentioned earlier, the results of this study their peers. Next come the questions of whether it showed that learners’ use of target language is necessary to include target language variability sociolinguistic variant is highly complex but into classroom instructions instruction and what systematic and constrained by multiple linguistic strategies the teachers might employ to and nonlinguistic factors. In addition, the factors accomplish the task. First, teachers need to be involved often interact with each other. aware of the use of the target language Therefore, this study supports the use of a sociolinguistic variations. Then the strategies multidimensional model to examine teachers can use might include incorporating sociolinguistic variation and foreign language more opportunities in classrooms to develop learning and use. Sociolinguistic variation is learners’ sociolinguistic competence, such as characterized by the interplay of multiple explicit teaching of sociolinguistic variation and linguistic, social, and developmental factors that designing materials specifically targeting constitute multiple dimensions of inter-language sociolinguistic variation. Thus, formal instruction grammars. In other words, in order to better of sociolinguistic variability in the target understand foreign language learning and use, language needs careful planning and consideration of the factors in multiple consideration and must take into consideration dimensions is essential. the proficiency levels of learners and the The results of analysis of the educational complexity of target language forms. factors showed that educational input, including In addition, the study also recommends teachers’ speech and instructional materials, has that the prolonged experience in the target an important influence on learners’ use of target language environment and more interactions for language sociolinguistic variants. Therefore, this learners’ development of sociolinguistic study supports the claims proposed by Mougeon competence might be attempted to develop. and Rehner (2001), who advocated the necessity Therefore, teachers or conversation partner of rethinking foreign language instructions to programs are necessary complements to formal help learners efficiently develop sociolinguistic classroom instruction for learners in which the competence. Lyster (1993: 44) supported this target language is taught as a second or foreign claim by contending that “the justification for language. These extracurricular activities can teaching sociolinguistic variation lies not in the provide learners with more opportunities to conveyance of prescriptive rules but rather in the interact and use authentic situations to use the provision of descriptive rules which aim to target language which might aid significantly in develop the students’ ability to make choices.” consequent learning and use of target language Normally, teachers tend to avoid teaching the forms. 59

Syahdan, , 4 (1) : 57 – 60 p-ISSN: 2502-7069; e-ISSN: 2620-8326

in language and education (pp. 59–66). CONCLUSION Amsterdam: Kluwer Academic.

The findings of the present study indicate Chambers, J. K. (2003). Sociolinguistic theory: that more sociolinguistic variation studies will linguistic variation and its social help students develop their sociolinguistic significance. Malden and Oxford: competence. This study found further that there Blackwell Publishers. are many other aspects that require further investigation, such as how speakers perform in Dewaele, J. (2004). Retention or omission of the the use of multiple modifiers, the variable ne in advanced French interlanguage: phonological realizations of sociolinguistic The variable effect of extralinguistic variations, the effects of various subcategories factors. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 8(3), under each function of sociolinguistic variation, 433–450. and the effects of specific speech contexts. Also, additional factors that have been explored in other Ghafarsamar, R. (2000). Aspects of second variation studies merit investigation, such as language speech: A variationist different levels of formality, social class of the perspective on second language speakers, attention to speech, interlocutor acquisition. Unpublished doctoral ethnicity, and personality. dissertation, University of Ottawa, Canada. All these findings suggest the direction for future research, that is, the study on the Halliday, M.A.K. 1977. “Text as Semantic comparison of sociolinguistic variation variable Choice in Social Contexts.” In van Dijk, usage by foreign language learners in non-native T.A., and J.S. Petofi (eds.). Grammars and and native speaker contexts. Additionally, this Descriptions. Berlin: De Gruyter. pp. 176- study showed that sociolinguistic variations used 225. by foreign language learners are systematic and constrained by various linguistic and Lyster, R. (1993). The effect of functional- nonlinguistic factors. Studies of other dependent analytic teaching on aspects of variables such as aspect marker and discourse sociolinguistic competence: A study in markers are also necessary to better understand French immersion classrooms at the the linguistic and sociolinguistic nature of Grade 8 level. Unpublished doctoral English, inter-language development, and the dissertation, University of Toronto, effects of optionality. The results of the present Canada. study may provide a resource and basis for such studies. More studies along these lines will help Major, R. C. (2004). Gender and stylistic learners and practitioners to understand variation in second language phonology. variability in native language and inter-language, Language Variation and Change, 16, 169– as well as foreign language learning and use. 188.

REFERENCES Mougeon, R., and Rehner, K. (2001). Acquisition of sociolinguistic variants by French immersion students: The case of restrictive Bayley, R. (2002). The quantitative paradigm. In expressions, and more. Modern J. K. Chambers, P. Trudgill, & N. Language Journal, 85(3), 398 415. Schilling-Estes (Eds.), The handbook of –

language variation and change (pp. Mougeon, R., Rehner, K., & Nadasdi, T. (2004). 117–141). Oxford: Blackwell. The learning of spoken French

variation by immersion students from Bortoni-Ricardo, S. M. (1997). Variationist Toronto, Canada. Journal of sociolinguistics. In N. H. Hornberger & D. Sociolinguistics, Corson (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language 8(3), 408 432. and education: Vol. 8. Research methods –

60