26.3041, Review: Applied Ling; Discourse; Lang Acq; Pragmatics; Socioling: Devlin (2014)

[The LINGUIST List via LINGUIST]

LINGUIST List: Vol-26-3041. Thu Jun 25 2015. ISSN: 1069 - 4875.

Subject: 26.3041, Review: Applied Ling; Discourse; Lang Acq; Pragmatics; Socioling: Devlin (2014)

Moderators: linguist at linguistlist.org (Damir Cavar, Malgorzata E. Cavar)
Reviews: reviews at linguistlist.org (Anthony Aristar, Helen Aristar-Dry, Sara Couture)
Homepage: http://linguistlist.org

*****************    LINGUIST List Support    *****************
Please support the LL editors and operation with a donation at:
              http://funddrive.linguistlist.org/donate/

Editor for this issue: Sara  Couture <sara at linguistlist.org>
================================================================


Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2015 14:34:11
From: Melissa Whatley [mwhatley at piedmont.edu]
Subject: The Impact of Study Abroad on the Acquisition of Sociopragmatic Variation Patterns

 
Discuss this message:
http://linguistlist.org/pubs/reviews/get-review.cfm?subid=36014397


Book announced at http://linguistlist.org/issues/25/25-3468.html

AUTHOR: Anne Marie Devlin
TITLE: The Impact of Study Abroad on the Acquisition of Sociopragmatic Variation Patterns
SUBTITLE: The Case of Non-Native Speaker English Teachers
SERIES TITLE: Intercultural Studies and Foreign Language Learning - Band 13
PUBLISHER: Peter Lang AG
YEAR: 2014

REVIEWER: Melissa Whatley, Piedmont College-Athens

Review's Editors: Malgorzata Cavar, Sara Couture, and Anna White

SUMMARY

“The Impact of Study Abroad on the Acquisition of Sociopragmatic Variation
Patterns: The Case of Non-Native Speaker English Teachers” by Anne Marie
Devlin consists of eight chapters detailing a study of the variable
sociopragmatic competence of highly advanced language learners. The author’s
goal is to examine the impact of contact with three loci of learning (defined
below) on the development of sociopragmatic variation patterns in the speech
act of asking for advice among non-native speaking English language
instructors. Learner identity, viewed from a post-structuralist perspective,
is seen as central to the acquisition of sociopragmatic variation.
 
Chapter one introduces key concepts and expands on how the current study
relates to previous research on language acquisition in the study abroad
setting. In this chapter, study abroad is defined as a context in which “an
instructed foreign language learner […] spends a period of time within the
target language country with the aim of having access to non-instructed
language learning opportunities (5)”. Three language contact contexts (loci of
learning) are employed to measure learners’ contact with the target language.
The first is the institutional locus of learning, which exhibits
characteristics of professional and institutional identity and necessitates a
fixed degree of formality and social distance. The conversational locus of
learning displays fluid identity and formality roles, dynamic turn-taking, and
variable social distances. This locus of learning is interactional and
co-constructed by participants. The third locus of learning is media-based.
Media-based communication is intended for a large, native-speaker audience and
is spread through cultural artifacts such as songs and newspapers.
 
Chapter two provides an overview of general pragmatic concepts, pragmatics in
second language (L2) acquisition, and the acquisition of sociolinguistic
competence. Pragmatics is defined as “the study of linguistic practices used
to convey and interpret messages within a sociocultural context taking into
account the bidirectional bond between producer intent and receiver
interpretation” (32). The author divides research on L2 pragmatics into two
categories: pragmatics in use and developmental pragmatics (i.e. the
acquisition of pragmatics). Sociopragmatic competence, defined as the
knowledge underlying a person’s ability to use language appropriately, is
emphasized, and the author argues that without adequate sociopragmatic
competence, learners lack an essential ingredient for developing relationships
with native speakers (NSs). The last sections of this chapter connect the
acquisition of sociopragmatic competence, conceptualized as the acquisition of
different ways of representing one’s identity, with learning context and
emphasize the importance of study abroad in this process. The general trend
found in previous literature is that gains in sociopragmatic competence are
generally commensurate with amount of time spent abroad. Conflicting
sociopragmatic demands of the L2 and the native language may result in
conflicting identities that learners must balance. 
 
Chapter three examines the role of identity in L2 development. The author
takes a poststructuralist view of identity, meaning that identity is regarded
not as a fixed construct but rather as fluid and ever-changing. Learners are
viewed as agents of their own identity and have many identities available to
them for performance. However, factors such as proficiency level and social
situation place some identities out of learners’ reach. As such, the
individual agency of the learner provides the capability to be any sort of
identity, while external demands interact with the learner’s agency to
constrain the identities he/she may adopt. Devlin points out that much
research in L2 acquisition ignores the role of a learner’s identity in
language acquisition, but that several recent variationist investigations have
taken into account aspects of identity, especially gender. While these studies
provide quantitative evidence that learners pattern like NSs concerning
gender, an ethnographic approach is better able to explain how these patterns
come about. Researchers have explored learners’ repositioning of gender
identities within their L2 context and emphasize how this repositioning
influences learners’ access to loci of learning. Devlin calls for additional
research that combines a quantitative approach to L2 acquisition with an
ethnographic approach in order to understand how interactions between identity
and learning environment influence acquisition. While the quantitative
approach can show the linguistic trajectory of acquisition, the ethnographic
approach explains why and how acquisition occurs. A combination of these
approaches is necessary to gain a fuller understanding of L2 acquisition.
 
Chapter four outlines the method of the study, which took place during a
two-week-long teacher training course in Cork, Ireland. In total, twenty
non-NS English teachers representing a variety of first-language backgrounds
participated in the study. All participants were considered to be
advanced/proficient English users based on the Common European Framework.
Participants represent a variety of previous abroad experience and are placed
into three distinct groups based on total time spent abroad. Group 1 consists
of primarily non-contextual language learners (average 31.83 days abroad),
group 2 consists of low-intensity cross-contextual learners (average 228.5
days abroad), and group 3 consists of high-intensity cross-contextual learners
(average 729.375 days abroad). Two data collection instruments, a language
contact profile questionnaire (Freed et al., 2004) and a role-play task, were
employed. Participants completed the language contact profile questionnaire on
the first day of their course while they completed the role-play task near the
end. The language contact profile questionnaire collected primarily
quantitative data involving learners’ contact with loci of learning
(institutional, conversational, and media-based). This data was used to
analyze correlations between accumulated experience abroad and intensity and
diversity of contact with loci of learning. The role-play task consisted of
two situations in which participants asked for advice. The first role-play was
an institutional role-play and consisted of a formal situation in which the
learner was the lower-status participant in a socially distant situation (e.g.
asking a teacher for advice on improving his/her child’s language skills). The
second role-play was informal and involved close social distance between the
interlocutors in a situation in which they were on equal status levels (e.g.
asking a friend for advice on a relationship problem).
 
Chapter five explores participants’ responses to the language contact profile
questionnaire. When considering contact with NSs and non-NSs, results indicate
that interaction is strongly biased towards non-NSs for Group 1 while Groups 2
and 3 present the opposite pattern. In other words, participants with more
experience abroad have more contact with NSs than with non-NSs. This result is
confirmed statistically with a series of one-way ANOVA tests which find that
while intensity of interaction with non-NSs does not change significantly with
additional experience abroad, intensity of interaction with NSs does
significantly increase. Differences among Groups 1, 2, and 3 are also observed
when taking into consideration loci of learning. When comparing results for
institutional and conversational loci of learning, Group 1 presents a bias
towards institutional interactions. This result may indicate that learners
with less than 60 days in the abroad environment have interactions that are
limited to service encounters and requests for information. Given that the
situations in which these learners use English are restricted, the identities
they are able to construct and the language they use are restricted as well.
Results for Groups 2 and 3 indicate that as participants gain experience in
the target-language environment, access to and interaction with conversational
and institutional loci of learning become more balanced. One-way ANOVA results
indicate that increased duration of time abroad does not significantly alter
the intensity of exposure to the institutional locus of learning but that
statistically significant differences do emerge for the conversational locus
of learning. The more time a participant spends in the target-language
environment, the more intense his/her exposure to conversational situations
becomes.
 
Finally, exposure to media-based loci of learning are explored. Results of
one-way ANOVA analyses reveal minimal significant differences among the three
participant groups according to most media-based activities (e.g. listening to
songs, reading books, watching television). Exposure to media-based loci of
learning appears to be highly-individualized in that it may depend heavily on
the purpose of participants’ time abroad and the amount of free time they
have. Reading newspapers presents an exception to this rule. Participants in
Group 3 read the newspaper in the target language significantly more often
than the other two groups.
 
Chapter six explores the pragmatic devices used by participants in the
role-play tasks with a view to identify the impact of time abroad on variable
sociopragmatic patterns. Results are presented for the institutional and
conversational genres for each group in turn. For Group 1, the institutional
setting is dominated by conventionalized indirectness, a pattern that renders
learners’ discourse appropriate to the pragmatic situation at hand. An
increase in non-conventionalized indirectness is observed in the
conversational genre. The use of non-conventionalized strategies is indicative
of this group’s advanced proficiency level in spite of their minimal
experience abroad in that it is evidence of participants’ ability to tailor
language to fit the pragmatic demands of a situation. Statistically speaking,
two-tailed paired samples t-tests indicate that participants’ use of
conventionalized directness is significantly different between institutional
and conversational genres, but no other strategy (e.g. non-conventional
indirectness) proves to differentiate the two genres. A qualitative analysis
of the data reveals differences in sub-strategy use including increased
variation in conventionalized indirect strategies within the conversational
genre and different distributions for grounders and hints as solidary moves in
the two genres.
 
For Group 2, the institutional genre is dominated by non-conventionalized
indirectness. While indirectness is congruent with the institutional genre,
the use of non-conventionalized pragmatic strategies is not. A bias towards
non-conventionalized indirectness is also found for the conversational genre,
where the use of these strategies is appropriate. Not surprisingly, no
statistical differences between the strategies used for the institutional
genre and the conversational genre were found. Qualitatively speaking,
non-conventional indirectness displays a difference in sub-strategies between
the two genres: both non-solidary and solidary moves were present in the
institutional genre while only solidary moves were found in the conversational
genre. Group 3 presents results that are similar to those for Group 2 in that
both genres are dominated by non-conventionalized indirectness. Again, the use
of these strategies is counter to the demands of the institutional genre, but
is in line with expectations for the conversational genre. Significant
differences are detected between the two genres concerning conventionalized
direct strategies and conventionalized indirect strategies employed even
though these strategies do not constitute the majority of the strategies
employed by participants. Conventionalized directness is employed exclusively
in the conversational genre, while conventionalized indirectness is employed
significantly more in the institutional setting. Qualitatively speaking,
grounders are employed as non-conventionalized indirect solidary moves more
often in the institutional genre than in the conversational genre, while hints
are employed more often in the conversational genre. Like Group 2,
non-solidary moves are found almost exclusively in the institutional genre,
with only two non-solidary moves employed by participants in the
conversational genre.
 
Overall, the most surprising result presented in this chapter is the
preference for non-conventionalized indirectness in the institutional genre
exhibited by Groups 2 and 3. The use of non-conventionalized indirect
strategies is not congruent with the social and pragmatic demands of the
institutional genre. Sociopragmatic variation in the strategies used in both
institutional and conversational genres is detected for all three participant
groups, indicating that even learners with shorter amounts of time spent
abroad are capable of sociopragmatic variation.
 
Chapter seven connects the quantitative results presented in previous chapters
with learners’ indexing of identity. This chapter begins with a micro-analysis
of the ways in which each group employs modality and speaker/hearer
orientation within the institutional and conversational genres. Within the
institutional genre, Group 1 indexes identity primarily through the use of
‘can you…’ which the author hypothesizes is acquired as a chunk. The use of
‘can you…’ correctly maps to the institutional genre in that
hearer-orientation is appropriately formal and socially distant, but the use
of the modal ‘can’ is not sufficiently downgraded for the institutional genre.
Like the institutional genre, the conversational genre also displays a high
use of hearer-oriented ‘you’ which is incongruent with the situation. However,
within the conversational genre, this group of participants employs more
varied modalities and thus takes on a more collaborative position. Group 2
presents no clear pattern in modality or speaker/hearer orientation within the
institutional genre. This group is more successful within the conversational
genre in spite of a continued preference for ‘you’ in that these speakers
conflate speaker/hearer orientation by using both ‘I’ and ‘you’ forms thus
promoting collaboration. Unlike Group 2, Group 3 presents a clear pattern
concerning the indexing of identity through modality and speaker/hearer
orientation within the institutional genre. This group rejects a lower-status
identity in that the pronoun ‘we’ dominates discourse, thus signaling
solidarity among participants. In the conversational genre, participants favor
the use of ‘I’, which indexes a socially close identity and employ epistemic
parentheticals (e.g. “So what do you think I should do?”), thus promoting the
co-construction of dialogue. Devlin hypothesizes that Group 3’s non-use of
appropriate markers of low-status in the institutional genre stems from their
role as authority figures in the language classroom, while Group 1’s use of
overly formal markers in the conversational genre is due to their overexposure
to institutional loci of learning.

The second section of this chapter outlines the solidary and non-solidary
devices used by participant groups. Within the institutional genre, Group 1
employs two types of solidary moves (hints and grounders) and two types of
non-solidary moves (avoidance and questioning). This use of non-solidary moves
in general is incongruent with the lower-status identity required of the
institutional genre. Participants fare somewhat better in the conversational
genre, which consists of solidary moves including hints, grounders, and
providing an alternative. Avoidance is the only non-solidary move employed by
this group of participants in the conversational genre. The use of
collaborative sub-strategies such as exposition and ellipsis enact the
socially close, equal-status identity required by the conversational genre.
Group 2 employs considerably more solidary moves in the institutional genre as
compared to Group 1. These tokens fall into six categories: positive
backchannels, providing alternatives, validation, overlap, hints, and
imposition minimizers. The use of these solidary moves is potentially
problematic for the institutional genre in that they may index an identity
that is too close in status to the interlocutor. Non-solidary moves within the
institutional genre include negative backchannels, problematicization,
questioning, correction, providing alternatives, and interruptions. The use of
non-solidary moves in the institutional genre is generally incongruous with
the demands of the social situation in that they threaten the face of the
higher-status interlocutor. Within the conversational genre, solidary moves
dominate and include tokens of positive backchannels, concordance, repetition,
overlap, problematicization, proposing alternatives, and hints. While some
individual difficulties do appear, participants tend to employ solidary
strategies in a manner that is congruent with the demands of the genre. In
other words, they employ these devices to signal equal social status and to
promote the co-construction of the conversation. The institutional genre
provides very few examples of solidary moves for Group 3. These examples fall
into two categories: positive backchannelling and hints. Contrary to the other
two groups, this group employs many non-solidary tokens, an unexpected finding
within the institutional genre. These tokens fall into five categories:
rejection, negative backchannels, providing alternatives, interruptions, and
questioning. Within the conversational genre, Group 3 employs only solidary
moves, including positive backchannels, providing alternatives, overlap,
hints, grounders, imposition minimizers, and problematicization of advice. The
use of these strategies is congruent with the social demands of the
conversational genre.

As with the analysis of modality, results for solidary and non-solidary moves
indicate that in general, Group 1 participants accept the identity
restrictions thrust upon them by the social situation while participants in
Group 3 actively reject the lower-status identity demanded by the
institutional genre. Group 2 presents a stage of acquisition during which
expression of identity is in flux, as evidenced by examples of both solidary
and non-solidary moves within the institutional genre. A progression is
observed from acceptance of a lower-status identity imposed by the
institutional genre (Group 1), to a stage at which the use of solidary and
non-solidary moves to enact identity presents no measurable pattern (Group 2),
and finally to a stage during which learners reject a lower-status identity in
favor of a higher-status identity that is congruent with their professional,
educator identity (Group 3).
 
Chapter eight provides a summary of findings and a detailed interpretation of
what these findings may mean for the acquisition of sociopragmatic competence,
particularly as it relates to the amount of time spent abroad. Firstly, the
fact that situational sociopragmatic variation is found at all is counter to
results of previous studies. Devlin attributes this finding to her
participants’ proficiency level, professional identity, personal investment in
language learning, and motivation. Although all three participant groups in
this study exhibited variable sociopragmatic behavior, only Group 3
exemplified consistent, fully developed variation. Not surprisingly, this
group also reported the most balanced contact with NSs as far as loci of
learning are concerned. The sociopragmatic acquisitional pattern (e.g.
speaker/hearer orientation, solidary moves) observable in the data appears to
reflect differential patterns of contact with loci of learning reported in the
language contact profile questionnaire. In general, variable patterns of Group
1 tended to conform to the needs of the institutional and conversational
genres, even though the level of variation was not very high. Group 2
presented an unpredictable pattern, especially in the institutional setting
with some linguistic devices in line with the sociopragmatic demands of the
genre and others not. Finally, Group 3 presents a very clear variable pattern
in that they employ moves that are congruent with the conversational genre but
clearly reject the status of lower-status interlocutor in the institutional
genre. Devlin hypothesizes that this result evidences the influence of
extended periods of time abroad. The more time learners spend in the
native-speaker environment, the better able they are to take agency of
identities in their L2.

EVALUATION

This study represents a much-needed analysis of data that incorporates both a
quantitative and qualitative perspective of the acquisition of sociopragmatic
competence. Devlin is correct in stating that while a quantitative analysis
shows the trajectory of acquisition, a qualitative analysis sheds light on the
“why” and “how” of this acquisition. Studies that incorporate more than one
type of data analysis are essential to a deeper understanding of how languages
are acquired. Devlin’s use of data from an under-studied, yet incredibly
important, participant group (non-NS English teachers) is timely. A study of
this group of participants is essentially a study of the input to which future
English-speakers are exposed. The importance of input in the language
acquisition process is undisputed, regardless of theoretical approach (e.g.
Krashen, 1977; Tarone, 2000; Tarone and Liu, 1995; Trahey and White, 1993),
and a similar study of the students of this participant group may prove to be
a fruitful avenue for future research.
 
Nevertheless, it is important to consider how certain methodological decisions
may have influenced the data presented in this study. Firstly, the fact that
participants were abroad at the time of data collection may complicate the
validity of results rather than bolster their legitimacy. Learners were asked
to complete the language contact profile questionnaire task at the beginning
of their course abroad, and it is unclear as to whether or not learners were
completing this task based on their contact with English abroad or their
contact with English in their home environment. Asking participants to report
on their contact with English over the course of one specific abroad
experience (e.g. at the end of their time in Ireland) may have clarified what
information learners were actually reporting on this task. An additional
methodological consideration that must be considered is the omission of NS
results for the role-play task. While scholars in the field of L2 acquisition
have recently argued convincingly for a consideration of learners’ linguistic
systems in their own right (e.g. Ortega, 2013), the omission of such data
complicates claims of congruence or incongruence with a certain pragmatic
genre (e.g. institutional). For example, while learners in Group 3 may have
presented results that were in conflict with the ideal demands of the
institutional genre, it may be that these learners are simply employing more
native-like behavior. Without a consideration of what the native-speaker may
do in this type of role-play task, it remains unclear whether or not learners
are actively rejecting a certain identity, as the author hypothesizes, or if
they are, in fact, simply employing more native-like pragmatics.
 
In sum, this study represents a much-needed and timely approach to language
acquisition, and Devlin’s use of multiple types of data analysis and data
triangulation is commendable. The critiques offered in this review are minimal
in comparison to the fruitful avenues of future research opened by a study
such as this one. Future research in the field of L2 acquisition would be
served well by undertaking such an approach.

REFERENCES

Freed B. F., Dewey, D.P., Segalowitz, N., and Halter, R. (2004). The Language
Contact Profile. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26, 349-356.

Krashen, S. (1977) .  The monitor model for adult second language performance.
 Viewpoints on English as a second language.  152 – 161.

Ortega, L. (2013). SLA for the 21st century: Disciplinary progress,
transdisciplinary relevance, and the bi/multilingual turn. Language Learning,
63, 1-24.

Tarone, E. (2000). Still wrestling with context in Interlanguage Theory.
Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 20, 182-198.

Tarone, E. and Liu, G.Q. (1995). Situational context, variation, and second
language acquisition theory. Principle and practice in applied linguistics:
Studies in honour of H.G. Widdowson. 107 – 124.

Trahey, M., and White, L. (1993).  Positive evidence and preemption in the
second language classroom. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 181 –
204.


ABOUT THE REVIEWER

Melissa Whatley is the Director of the Learning Center at Piedmont
College-Athens. Her research interests include international education and
language acquisition in the study abroad environment.





----------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-26-3041	
----------------------------------------------------------