- Email: [email protected]
The effect of instruction on language learners' sociolinguistic awareness: An empirical study with pedagogical implications
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
System 41 (2013) 298e306
www.elsevier.com/locate/system
The effect of instruction on language learners’ sociolinguistic awareness: An empirical study with pedagogical implications Re´mi A. van Compernolle a,*, Lawrence Williams b a
Department of Modern Languages, Carnegie Mellon University, Baker Hall 160, 5000 Forbes Ave., PA 15213, USA b University of North Texas, USA Received 30 September 2011; revised 27 January 2013; accepted 1 February 2013 Available online 5 March 2013
Abstract This article presents the results of a study centered on the effect of instruction on second language (L2) learners’ sociolinguistic awareness, with specific focus on French negative structures (i.e., presence vs. absence of ne). Drawing on data from a metalinguistic awareness questionnaire completed by 110 US university learners of French in five different groups, we examine the extent to which instruction versus no instruction influences awareness of variation as well as differences among three approaches to instruction (i.e., integrated curriculum vs. one-time explicit instruction vs. one-time nonexplicit intervention). Our results show that some form of instruction is better than no instruction. However, the type of instruction is also a crucial factor. Following the presentation of the results, we discuss the role of sociolinguistic knowledge in relation to L2 performance abilities. Pedagogical implications are also provided. Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Language awareness; Sociolinguistic variation; Second language instruction; French
1. Introduction The study reported in this article examines the relationship between instruction and the sociolinguistic awareness of intermediate-level US university learners of French, focusing on one type of sociostylistic variation: the presence versus the absence of the proclitic negative morpheme ne. Sociolinguistic awareness is defined here as awareness or knowledge of variable L2 forms (e.g., lexical, grammatical, phonological variables) and of their social and/or stylistic significance in relation to contexts of use, social relationships, and personal identities. Variation between the presence and absence of ne in French negation is one example of a grammatical variable that carries social and stylistic meaning. The presence of ne, as in (1), is generally required in standard, formal (especially written) French, whereas its absence, as in (2), is characteristic of almost all European and North American speakers of French in more informal, everyday (especially spoken) French (for a comprehensive review of research, see van Compernolle, 2010). * Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected] (R.A. van Compernolle). 0346-251X/$ - see front matter Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2013.02.001
R.A. van Compernolle, L. Williams / System 41 (2013) 298e306
(1) a. a. b. b. (2) a. a. b. b.
299
Jean n’aime pas aller au cine´ma. Jean does not like going to the movies. Je ne mange jamais de fromage au petit de´jeuner. I never eat cheese at breakfast. Jean aime pas aller au cine´ma. Jean does not like going to the movies. Je mange jamais de fromage au petit de´jeuner. I never eat cheese at breakfast.
Despite the prevalence of ne absence in the everyday speech of native speakers of French, learner textbooks often do not present this as a viable option (Etienne and Sax, 2009). Instead, the more formal, standard ne-present form is nearly categorically presented as the correct way to negate a verb. Learners of French whose exposure to the language has taken place almost exclusively in a classroom context tend to demonstrate a preference for using ne presence; their increasing use of ne absence and sensitivity to sociostylistic patterns typically correlate with increased opportunities to interact with native speakers (e.g., during study abroad) and more advanced second language (L2) socialization (Dewaele, 2004; Dewaele and Regan, 2002; Mougeon et al., 2010; Regan et al., 2009; Sax, 2003; van Compernolle and Williams, 2009). The issue of whether, and to what extent, sociolinguistic awareness plays a role in learners’ developing control over variation has also recently been explored. Kinginger and Ferrell (2004) and Kinginger (2008) have explored learners’ metapragmatic awareness regarding the use of the French second-person pronouns tu and vous before and after participation in study abroad. They have shown that increased awareness of sociolinguistic patterns developed during a one-year sojourn in France can guide learners’ choice of pronoun as a means of indexing their L2 identities and social relationships. Likewise, in our own previous research, we have illustrated that explicit instruction focusing on sociostylistic variation in a classroom context can develop learners’ awareness of the meanings created by variational practice, which can then serve an orienting basis for their agentive use of language variants (van Compernolle and Williams, 2012a, 2012b). To be sure, and this should be emphasized, knowledge of language (e.g., sociolinguistic awareness) does not always equate to a tacit ability for use. Indeed, instructional arrangements explicitly focused on linking knowledge to use are needed, as made clear in our previous work (e.g., engaging learners in communicative tasks in which they are explicitly prompted to plan and reflect on the use of specific sociolinguistic features of language). The present study continues one part of this line of inquiry by examining the effects of different types of instruction on learners’ sociolinguistic awareness. 2. Theoretical and empirical background The value of explicit metalinguistic knowledge in L2 acquisition (SLA) and, by extension, explicit teaching “has been and remains today one of the most controversial issues in language pedagogy” (R. Ellis, 2005, p. 214). For instance, Krashen (1985) claimed that explicit knowledge (i.e., learned language) served only to monitor output, whereas others have argued that explicit metalinguistic knowledge can be converted into (DeKeyser, 1998) or interface with (N. C. Ellis, 2005; N. C. Ellis and Larsen-Freeman, 2006) implicit competence through extensive use of the L2. Paradis (2009) claims that explicit (declarative) and implicit (procedural) knowledge remain neurophysiologically distinct, but that L2 use relying on declarative knowledge can indirectly feed implicit competence. Also relevant here is Schmidt’s (1993) noticing hypothesis, which holds that learners need to notice (i.e., consciously attend to) and understand language forms for acquisition to occur. As such, drawing learners’ attention to forms and functions through instruction should be beneficial. However, despite evidence that explicit instruction does indeed help learners, there is no general consensus as to what optimal instruction entails (DeKeyser and Sokalski, 2001; Norris and Ortega, 2000). Our own research has been informed by Vygotskian sociocultural theory (SCT) of mind (Vygotsky, 1987), which treats declarative knowledge as a mediating artifact that shapes and informs thought and language use. Sociolinguistic knowledge can afford learners conscious control over their performance because it serves as an orienting basis for action. This claim is particularly in line with research on concept-based language teaching (Negueruela, 2003; Lantolf, 2007, 2008; Swain et al., 2009). As we have discussed elsewhere (van Compernolle and Williams, 2012a, 2012b), sociolinguistic knowledge often develops ahead of learners’ sociolinguistic performance abilities.
300
R.A. van Compernolle, L. Williams / System 41 (2013) 298e306
Sociolinguistic knowledge and sociolinguistic performance are not, therefore, identical or equivalent, but neither are they independent, because each influences the other in a dialectical unity. In other words, sociolinguistic knowledge and sociolinguistic performance are two sides of the same coin, each of which is crucial to learners’ agentive, controlled use of sociolinguistic features of discourse for meaning-making purposes. Our investigations into pedagogy have been an attempt to address the shortcomings of instructed language learning for developing learners’ sociolinguistic competence highlighted, in particular, by the research of Dewaele (2004), Kinginger (2008), Lyster (1994), Mougeon et al. (2010), Regan et al. (2009), and Sax (2003), among others. Pedagogical recommendations have included exposing learners to sociostylistically differentiated language variants, explaining their sociostylistic values, and providing learners with opportunities to use the variants in communicative tasks. Although previous research has drawn from diverse theoretical frameworks in explaining learners’ performance and in making pedagogical recommendations, there seems to be a general consensus that developing awareness of variation is a key component of any instructional unit. In addition, developing awareness of variation has been conceptualized as having two sides: first, an awareness of which features of language are variable (and what the variants are); and, second, an awareness of the sociostylistic values or meaning potential of the variants. In short, sociolinguistic awareness simultaneously entails linguistic knowledge and sociocultural knowledge. Our primary goal in this article is to explore the effects of different types of instruction on learners’ sociolinguistic awareness. To this end, we reanalyze and compare data used in several prior publications (van Compernolle and Williams, 2011, 2012a, 2012b) as well as previously unpublished data collected as part of our larger research program. More specifically, we compare responses to an end-of-semester sociolinguistic awareness questionnaire among three groups of students who participated in some form of instruction and two groups of students who had no formal instruction on sociostylistic variation. 3. Methodology 3.1. Participants and groups A total of 110 intermediate-level (fourth semester) US university learners of French participated in this study. These include three experimental groups in which some type of pedagogical intervention (in English, the students’ L1)1 was included in the course and two nonexperimental or control groups who had no exposure to any formal instruction on sociolinguistic variation. All groups followed the same basic syllabus and used the same textbook. Thus, the only curricular difference among the groups was the presence or absence of an instructional program on sociolinguistic variation. Table 1 provides information about each group. 3.2. The metalinguistic questionnaire As reported in van Compernolle and Williams (2011), we developed an end-of-semester sociolinguistic questionnaire in order to elucidate learners’ awareness of variation in French as a means of triangulating their sociolinguistic performance (i.e., productive discourse). One part of the questionnaire asked students to describe the difference, if any, between the following sentences, in particular 1b and 1c (i.e., ne presence vs. absence) as shown below. 1a Paul aime le chocolat. Paul likes chocolate. 1b Paul n’aime pas le chocolat. Paul does not like chocolate [þ ne]. 1 Our pedagogical interventions were designed in English, the learners’ first or dominant language, in order to allow them to consciously reflect on sociolinguistic variation, a task that is too cognitively complex for them to accomplish in their L2, French. In addition, within the Vygotskian framework espoused in our research, there is “no contradiction between using English to mediate understanding of a concept that is then applied to understanding how French ‘works’ and its subsequent use” (Swain et al., 2009; pp. 7e8). To be sure, research into the use of an L2 to mediate complex cognitive functions is neededdthat is, to what extent can the L2 be used not only as a communicative tool (i.e., proficiency) but as a psychological tool directed inward to mediate individual cognitive activity.
R.A. van Compernolle, L. Williams / System 41 (2013) 298e306
301
Table 1 Description of groups. Group Experimental groups Sp08 A (N ¼ 24) Fa06 EI (N ¼ 22) Fa06 NEI (N ¼ 22)
Control groups Sp08 B (N ¼ 24) Sp08 C (N ¼ 18)
Description Sociolinguistic features of French incorporated into all aspects of the curriculum, including explicit instruction about variation, opportunities to use variation, and assessments of metalinguistic knowledge about variation (e.g., on formal exams) (see van Compernolle & Williams, 2012a). One-time intervention at mid-semester in which students analyzed various texts representing stylistically differentiated levels of discourse. Explicit feedback and instruction provided by instructor (see van Compernolle & Williams, 2011). One-time intervention at mid-semester in which students analyzed various texts representing stylistically differentiated levels of discourse. No feedback or explicit instructions provided (see van Compernolle & Williams, 2011). No formal instruction on sociolinguistic variation. The instructor was a French NS from Western France who had taught at the university level for over 10 years. No formal instruction on sociolinguistic variation. The instructor was a NNS of French in her 2nd year of university teaching.
1c Paul aime pas le chocolat. Paul does not like chocolate [ ne]. As an extension of this previous study, we administered this same questionnaire to the Spring 2008 experimental group as well as the two nonexperimental groups (see Table 1). 3.3. Coding procedures Responses to the questionnaire were blinded (i.e., given a random alphanumeric code) and shuffled together in order to minimize any bias during coding. Both researchers independently coded all responses on a scale of 0e3 (see Table 2; see also van Compernolle and Williams, 2011). A zero means that the student did not identify the locus of variation (i.e., ne presence vs. absence) or provide an accurate explanation. A 1 means that the locus of variation was identified, but the explanation was either not accurate or completely absent. A 2 means that the locus of variation was identified, but the explanation was somewhat unclear and/or incomplete. A 3 means that the locus of variation was identified and an accurate explanation was given in terms of formality and/or context. Inter-rater agreement was over 90%. In the cases where there was a disagreement, a third person (a very experienced, full-time instructor of French) was asked to provide an assessment. Incidentally, the only coding disagreements centered on whether a student should receive a 0 vs. 1, or a 2 vs. 3 e that is, there was no disagreement as to whether the response was more or less accurate (2 or 3) or inaccurate (0 or 1). 4. Results Our first level of analysis explores the overall distribution of scores on the sociolinguistic questionnaire. Table 3 displays these results (observed frequencies of scores and percentages). As can be seen in the data, the highest proportions of 3s occur in the two groups who received explicit instruction (i.e., Sp08 A and Fa06 EI), with the Sp08 A group having the highest proportion of 3s. At the same time, none of the Sp08 A students received a 0 or 1 on the questionnaire. The Fa06 NEI group, who were exposed to but not explicitly instructed on sociostylistic variation, received relatively lower scores. Over one third received a score 1, just under one third received a 3, 22.7% received a 2, and two students received a 0. The two control groups, for their part, are markedly different. Over one half of the Sp08 B group, whose teacher was an experienced teacher and NS of French, scored a 3, just under one third a 0, three students received a 1, and a single student received a 2. By contrast, almost two thirds of the Sp08 C group, whose teacher was a novice teacher and NNS of French, received a 0. 1s, 2s, and 3s are approximately equally distributed across two, three, and two students, respectively. Mean scores for the groups (Fig. 1) indicate a general positive correlation between the amount and quality of explicit instruction and sociolinguistic awareness. The Sp08 group scored the highest (M ¼ 2.89), followed by Fa08 EI
R.A. van Compernolle, L. Williams / System 41 (2013) 298e306
302
Table 2 Qualitative scoring definitions and examples. Score
Definition
3
Identifies locus of variation and provides an accurate explanation in terms of formality and/or context.
Examples
2
Identifies locus of variation but provides an unclear or incomplete explanation.
1
Identifies locus of variation but provides an inaccurate or no explanation.
0
Does not identify the variation or provide an accurate explanation.
Simply put, 1b is more formal than 1c. It is also technically “more” grammatically correct (and thus is found more frequently in writing, such as books & newspaper articles). 1c is more often encountered in casual conversation (online or in person). Both effectively communicate the same thing: that Paul dislikes chocolate. Both 1b and 1c are negative. However 1b is more formal because it uses the ne as well. In class whenever we looked at different scenes [from films] or papers with a variety of formal levels, the more formal ones always used ne. The main difference between 1b and 1c is that 1c doesn’t have ne. I think this is so because maybe one way is more formal than the other way. (1b.) has the “ne” in front of the verb, “aimer” and is the [sic] followed by “pas” to finish the negation. (1c.) however doesn’t used “ne” in front of the verb to negate it. “Pas” is the only hint of negation and it follows the verb. Perhaps (1c.) is more informal. The difference between “n’aime pas” and “aime pas” is that the later [sic] is more like an abbreviation. It’s understood w/the pas in place w/o having to use the ne. The difference between 1b and 1c is that first and foremost 1b uses n’ before the verb and 1c only uses pas after the verb. If translated 1b may refer as “Paul does not like chocolate”. If 1c is translated one can see that Paul likes not the chocolate. It is still the same sentence, except without the ne...pas negation. Perhaps the 1b sentence is more formal than the second. In sentence 1b. (Paul n’aime pas le chocolat) e a negation e ne n’aime e is used. In sentence 1cdthere is no negation present. In French ne when placed before the verb we automatically assume its [sic] negating a verb and its [sic] one of those things you learn in french [sic] and just accept it for what it is. Because ne sounds really close to no that it is how I distinguish them.
(M ¼ 2.50), Sp08 B (M ¼ 1.83), Fa06 NEI (M ¼ 1.77), and finally Sp08 C (M ¼ 0.78). What is interesting here is that the Sp08 B group, who received no formal instruction on sociostylistic variation, slightly outperformed the Fa06 NEI group, who participated in an implicit instruction intervention. It should be noted, however, that the instructor of this group often omitted ne in her speech and, in a conversation with one the authors, recalled having explained e at least superficially e ne variation to her class. These descriptive statistics suggest that explicit instruction is indeed beneficial to developing learners’ sociolinguistic awareness. In addition, incorporating variation into the curriculum (Sp08 A) is more effective than a one-time intervention (Fa06 EI). Our second level of analysis seeks to explore whether the differences among groups are statistically significant. To do so, we performed the nonparametric Wilcoxon ManneWhitney rank-order test of significance to establish independence among the groups. The results are provided in Table 4. The data show that that the difference among the groups is statistically significant at the p ¼ .001 level. This confirms our hypothesis that the instruction in general is beneficial to learners’ sociolinguistic awareness. Another important finding here are differences in variance, as indicated by the standard deviation and shown in the overall distribution of scores in Table 3. The Sp08 A group had the least variance (SD ¼ 0.34), followed by Fa06 EI Table 3 Distribution of scores. Group
Sp08 A Fa06 EI Fa06 NEI Sp08 B Sp08 C
Score (%) 0
1
2
e 1 2 7 11
e 3 (13.6) 8 (36.4) 3 (12.5) 2 (11.1)
3 2 5 1 3
(4.7) (9.1) (29.2) (61.1)
3 (12.5) (9.0) (22.7) (4.1) (16.7)
21 16 7 13 2
(87.5) (72.7) (31.8) (54.2) (11.1)
R.A. van Compernolle, L. Williams / System 41 (2013) 298e306
303
Fig. 1. Bar graph of mean scores.
(SD ¼ 0.91), Fa06 NEI (SD ¼ 1.02), Sp08 B (SD ¼ 1.37), and finally Sp08 B (SD ¼ 1.37). Interestingly, although the instructor for the Sp08 B group may have explained ne variation in her class, which may have resulted in a higher mean score, it was not equally effective in drawing all learners’ attention to this variation. This is not surprising given the fact that this explanation was incidental or made in passing, rather than incorporated as part of a formal pedagogical unit. We also performed chi-square tests to compare individual groups. Statistical significance was set at the p < .05 level. These results are given in Table 5. Our analysis shows that the difference between each pair was statistically significant, with the exception of the Sp08 B vs. Fa06 NEI comparison. This finding suggests that there may be no difference in benefit between simple exposure to variation during a pedagogical task (Fa06 NEI) and a teacher’s in-passing comment or explanation (Sp08 B). However, there is a difference between organized explicit one-time instruction (Fa06 EI) and exposure (Fa06 EI vs. Fa06 NEI; see van Compernolle and Williams, 2011), as well as between organized one-time instruction and in-passing explanation (Fa06 EI vs. Sp08 B). In addition, the difference between the Sp08 A group and the Fa06 EI group was significant, indicating that the length and quality of instruction is an important factor. Finally, the Sp08 C group was outperformed by all other groups, which may be indicative of a lack of variation in the teacher’s discourse and explanations e even in passing e of variation. To be sure, this explanation is merely speculative since we do not have access to recordings of this instructor’s teaching practices. 5. Discussion 5.1. Summary and interpretation The results reported above provide insight into our understanding of the role of instruction in the development of sociolinguistic awareness. Our first research question aimed to address whether instruction, in general, is beneficial to learners’ sociolinguistic awareness. Our findings suggest that learners do indeed benefit more from explicit instruction than simple exposure. Even an explicit comment or explanation made in passing may be somewhat beneficial to learners (i.e., the Sp08 B group) as is an instructional unit in which learners are exposed to variants without an explicit explanation of the variation (i.e., the Fa06 NEI group). Table 4 Results of Wilcoxon ManneWhitney rank-order test of significance. Group
N
Mean score
SD
Mean rank
Sp08 A Fa06 EI Sp08 B Fa06 NEI Sp08 C
24 22 24 22 18
2.89 2.50 1.83 1.77 0.78
0.34 0.91 1.37 1.02 1.11
76.44 67.48 52.63 47.61 26.42
Chi-square ¼ 35.919, df ¼ 4, p ¼ .001.
R.A. van Compernolle, L. Williams / System 41 (2013) 298e306
304
Table 5 Individual comparisons among groups. Comparison
Sig. (p < .05)
Sp08 A vs. Fa06 EI Fa06 EI vs. Sp08 B Fa06 EI vs. Fa06 NEIa Sp08 vs. Fa06 NEI Fa06 NEI vs. Sp08 C
U U U NS U
a
As reported in van Compernolle and Williams (2011).
Our second research question addressed more specifically the type of instruction provided to learners. Our results clearly show that explicit instruction that is intentionally organized to promote learners’ sociolinguistic awareness (i.e., Sp08 A and Fa06 EI) is the most successful form of instruction. In addition, one-time interventions (Fa06 EI) do not result in the same learning outcomes as a fully integrated curriculum (Sp08 A). This is perhaps unsurprising given the findings reported by Lyster (1994), who showed that integrating instruction on the pronouns tu and vous throughout an academic term helped learners develop a better understanding of these pronouns. It is also noteworthy that the Fa06 NEI group has a large proportion of 1s and 2s. As we mentioned above, sociolinguistic awareness entails two dimensions: first, awareness of which features are variable and what the variants are; and second, awareness of the sociostylistic values associated with the variants. Scores of 1 and 2 indicate that these learners developed some understanding of the linguistic (i.e., awareness of the fact of variation) but not of the sociostylistic (i.e., formal vs. everyday or informal) dimension of this one type of variation. In other words, they seem to be aware that ne can be present or absent but not to have understood the social meaning of this variation. By contrast, students in the Fa06 EI and Sp08 A groups appear to have developed an awareness of both the linguistic and sociostylistic dimensions, as indicated by the high proportions of 3s (72.7 and 87.5%, respectively). As such, while rather implicit forms of instruction may be sufficient for drawing learners’ attention to variation between forms, explicit instruction may be necessary to lead learners toward an understanding of the sociostylistic values or meaning potential of the variants. As we have shown elsewhere (van Compernolle and Williams, 2011, 2012c), learners are often capable of identifying variation with relative ease during awareness-raising tasks, but they encounter problems when asked to formulate hypotheses about the sociostylistic meaning of the variation, which requires explicit assistance from a teacher (see also Kinginger, 1998). Although we are advocates of promoting sociolinguistic awareness, we do not believe that this should be the sole objective of instructional programs. In fact, as noted above, within our sociocultural theoretic perspective, sociolinguistic awareness and performance abilities form a dialectical unity. Both aspects of language learning and language use are necessary for the development of one’s capacity to use variation for meaning-making purposes. 5.2. Sociolinguistic awareness does not equate to control over variation As noted in the introduction, developing sociolinguistic awareness does not necessarily entail the concomitant development of control over variation in productive discourse. This observation is in line with the collective body of instructed SLA literature, where it is generally accepted that knowing a rule of grammar (explicit or declarative knowledge), for example, does not necessarily mean that a learner can or will use that rule appropriately (R. Ellis, 2005). As we have reported elsewhere (van Compernolle and Williams, 2011, 2012a), learners who develop awareness of both the linguistic and sociostylistic dimensions of variation may not demonstrate control over the variation in performance. To be sure, there are many factors at work here, including learners’ individual histories, their disposition to variational practice, and their interpretations of performance tasks, but it remains that explicit knowledge and performance abilities, though related, are not identical. 5.3. Use of variation does not equate to sociolinguistic awareness Another important issue is that the use of variation in language production does not necessarily equate to sociolinguistic awareness. While performance data have traditionally been the sole source of data for documenting and evaluating language learners’ level(s) of sociolinguistic competence, we argue that this is not sufficient (see also
R.A. van Compernolle, L. Williams / System 41 (2013) 298e306
305
Kinginger, 2008; Kinginger and Ferrell, 2004). In a recent study (van Compernolle and Williams, 2011), we documented the case of one learner who demonstrated native-like patterns of variation in the use of ne presence and absence. We argued that because this student learned French in Belgium, as opposed to in a classroom, she had acquired some of the sociolinguistic patterns of NS communities. However, on the sociolinguistic questionnaire, she was not able to identify, much less explain, variation between ne absence and presence. In fact, she qualified the neabsent sentence as not being negative because ne was not present. In short, although she may have nonconsciously acquired some sociolinguistic patterns, her lack of sociolinguistic awareness e and, thus, control over the variation e could lead to negative social consequences in the future (e.g., using the ne-absent form in a context where ne presence is required or at least expected). 5.4. Sociolinguistic awareness can lead (to) controlled use of variation Although sociolinguistic awareness and sociolinguistic performance are not identical, they are related inasmuch as conscious knowledge about sociostylistic variation can lead (to) controlled use of variation (van Compernolle and Williams, 2012a, 2012b). By this, we mean that sociolinguistic awareness can e through instruction e develop ahead of one’s performance abilities; in turn, controlled use of variation e that is, agentive, purposeful variational practice e may develop as learners internalize their sociolinguistic knowledge as a cognitive tool. This claim is one of the central tenets of Vygotskian approaches to developmental education (see Negueruela, 2008). It also finds support in Paradis’ (2009) neurolinguistic account of declarative and procedural determinants of L2s. In short, Paradis’ argument is that adult L2 learners rely extensively on their metalinguistic knowledge, which is subserved by their declarative memory system. Through extensive use of the L2, adult learners may be able to “speed up” (i.e., accelerate) their access to this explicit knowledge sufficiently to pass for native-like L2 use. This means that sociolinguistic awareness can in fact serve to guide learners’ controlled use of variation, which at first may be slow and deliberate, but e through extensive use of the L2 over time e may be sufficiently accelerated to be perceived as automatic. 6. Conclusion Our research has illustrated that language learners’ sociolinguistic awareness benefits from explicit instruction that is intentionally organized to draw their attention to both the linguistic and the sociocultural dimensions of variation in language. In addition, sociolinguistic awareness e though not necessarily a direct index of one’s performance abilities e may lead to controlled use of variation for meaning-making purposes (van Compernolle and Williams, 2012b). In line with Paradis’ (2009) neurolinguistic theory of adult SLA, this controlled use of L2 variants may be sufficiently accelerated through extensive L2 use to appear automatic. However, regardless of how accelerated access to sociolinguistic awareness may become, it remains an important psychological tool that is not only verbalizable or declarable but, in fact, frames a learner’s cognitive functioning, including language use. Although we have focused on only a single type of sociolinguistic variation in French (i.e., presence vs. absence of ne in verbal negation), our research holds clear implications for L2 pedagogy. As we have shown, learners’ sociolinguistic awareness is best developed in conditions where sociolinguistic variation and its social meaning are made explicit (i.e., Sp08 A and Fa06 EI). It is also the case that when such pedagogy is systematic and recurrent (i.e., Sp08 A), rather than a one-time intervention, there are improved learning outcomes in terms of sociolinguistic awareness. We would like to point out, however, that the Sp08 A class did not simply have repeated or multiple awareness-raising tasks devoid of any link to communicative language use. On the contrary, because the idea was to integrate sociolinguisticsfocused instruction into the curriculum systematically, the learners’ developing conscious knowledge of language was always linked to communicative tasks through pretask planning and posttask reflection in collaboration with their teacher and other students. As we have shown elsewhere (van Compernolle and Williams, 2012a, 2012b), the link between awareness and performance is not a one-way causal relationship. Performance is not simply a result of conscious learning about sociolinguistic variation and social meaning (i.e., sociolinguistic awareness). Rather, conscious learning creates the conditions for the development of performance abilities, which in turn can create the conditions for the further growth of conscious knowledge if the link between awareness and performance is made explicit through pedagogical arrangements, and this is the key pedagogical implication. Awareness-raising tasks and communicative tasks cannot be designed in isolation of one another. Rather, their relationship must be explicit, and the teacher e through pedagogy e must forge students’ understanding of the link between awareness and performance.
306
R.A. van Compernolle, L. Williams / System 41 (2013) 298e306
References DeKeyser, R.M., 1998. Beyond focus on form: cognitive perspectives on learning and practicing second language grammar. In: Doughty, C., Williams, J. (Eds.), Focus on Form in Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 42e66. DeKeyser, R., Sokalski, K., 2001. The differential role of comprehension and production practice. In: Ellis, R. (Ed.), Form-focused Instruction and Second Language Learning. Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 81e112. Dewaele, J.-M., 2004. The acquisition of sociolinguistic competence in French as a foreign language: an overview. J. French Lang. Stud. 14, 301e319. Dewaele, J.-M., Regan, V., 2002. Maıˆtriser la norme sociolinguistique en interlangue franc¸aise: Le cas de l’omission variable de ‘ne’. J. French Lang. Stud. 12, 123e148. Ellis, N.C., 2005. At the interface: dynamic interactions of explicit and implicit language knowledge. Stud. Second Lang. Acquis. 24, 143e188. Ellis, R., 2005. Principles of instructed language learning. System 33, 209e224. Ellis, N.C., Larsen-Freeman, D., 2006. Language emergence: implications for applied linguistics e introduction to the special issue. Appl. Linguist. 27, 558e589. Etienne, C., Sax, K., 2009. Stylistic variation in French: bridging the gap between research and textbooks. Modern Lang. J. 93, 584e606. Kinginger, C., 1998. Videoconferencing as access to spoken French. Modern Lang. J. 82, 502e513. Kinginger, C., 2008. Language learning in study abroad: case studies of Americans in France. Modern Lang. J. 92 (s1) Kinginger, C., Farrell, K., 2004. Assessing development of meta-pragmatic awareness in study abroad. Front. Interdis. J. Study Abroad X, 19e42. Krashen, S.D., 1985. The Input Hypothesis: Issues and Implications. Longman, New York. Lantolf, J.P., 2007. Conceptual knowledge and instructed second language learning. In: Fotos, S., Nassaji, H. (Eds.), Form-focused Instruction and Teacher Education: Studies in Honour of Rod Ellis. Oxford University Press, Oxford, England, pp. 35e54. Lantolf, J.P., 2008. Praxis and classroom L2 development. Estudios de lingu¨´ıstica inglesia aplicada 8, 13e44. Lyster, R., 1994. The effect of functional-analytic teaching on aspects of French immersion students’ sociolinguistic competence. Appl. Linguist. 15, 263e287. Mougeon, R., Nadasdi, T., Rehner, K., 2010. The Sociolinguistic Competence of Immersion Students. Multilingual Matters, Bristol. Negueruela 2003. Negueruela, E., 2003. A Sociocultural Approach to Teaching and Researching Second Language: Systemic-theoretical instruction and second language development. Unpublished doctoral dissertation: The Pennsylvania State University. Negueruela, E., 2008. Revolutionary pedagogies: learning that leads (to) second language development. In: Lantolf, J.P., Poehner, M.E. (Eds.), Sociocultural Theory and the Teaching of Second Languages. Equinox, London, pp. 189e227. Norris, J.M., Ortega, R., 2000. Effectiveness of L2 instruction: a research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Lang. Learn. 50, 417e528. Paradis, M., 2009. Declarative and Procedural Determinants of Second Languages. John Benjamins, Amsterdam. Regan, V., Howard, M., Leme´e, I., 2009. The Acquisition of Sociolinguistic Competence in a Study Abroad Context. Multilingual Matters, Bristol. Sax, K., 2003. The acquisition of stylistic variation by American learners of French. Doctoral dissertation, Indiana University, Bloomington. Schmidt, R., 1993. Consciousness, learning and interlanguage pragmatics. In: Kasper, G., Blum-Kulka, S. (Eds.), Interlanguage Pragmatics. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 21e42. Swain, M., Lapkin, S., Knouzi, I., Suzuki, W., Brooks, L., 2009. Languaging: University students learn the grammatical concept of voice in French. Modern Lang. J. 93, 5e29. van Compernolle, R.A., 2010. The (slightly more) productive use of ne in Montreal French chat. Lang. Sci. 32 (4), 447e463. van Compernolle, R.A., Williams, L., 2009. Variable omission of ne in real-time French chat: a corpus-driven comparison of educational and noneducational contexts. Can. Modern Lang. Rev. 65 (3), 413e440. van Compernolle, R.A., Williams, L., 2011. Metalinguistic explanations and self-reports as triangulation data for interpreting L2 sociolinguistic performance. Int. J. Appl. Ling. 21 (1), 26e50. van Compernolle, R.A., Williams, L., 2012a. Teaching, learning, and developing L2 French sociolinguistic competence: a sociocultural perspective. Appl. Ling. 33 (2), 184e205. van Compernolle, R.A., Williams, L., 2012b. Reconceptualizing sociolinguistic competence as mediated action: identity, meaning-making, agency. Modern Lang. J. 96 (2), 234e250. van Compernolle, R.A., Williams, L., 2012c. Promoting sociolinguistic competence in the classroom zone of proximal development. Lang. Teach. Res. 16 (1), 39e60. Vygotsky, L.S., 1987. The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky. In: Rieber, R.W. (Ed.). In: Carton, A.S. (Ed.), Problems of General Psychology. Including the Volume Thinking and Speech, vol. 1. Plenum, New York.
System 41 (2013) 298e306
www.elsevier.com/locate/system
The effect of instruction on language learners’ sociolinguistic awareness: An empirical study with pedagogical implications Re´mi A. van Compernolle a,*, Lawrence Williams b a
Department of Modern Languages, Carnegie Mellon University, Baker Hall 160, 5000 Forbes Ave., PA 15213, USA b University of North Texas, USA Received 30 September 2011; revised 27 January 2013; accepted 1 February 2013 Available online 5 March 2013
Abstract This article presents the results of a study centered on the effect of instruction on second language (L2) learners’ sociolinguistic awareness, with specific focus on French negative structures (i.e., presence vs. absence of ne). Drawing on data from a metalinguistic awareness questionnaire completed by 110 US university learners of French in five different groups, we examine the extent to which instruction versus no instruction influences awareness of variation as well as differences among three approaches to instruction (i.e., integrated curriculum vs. one-time explicit instruction vs. one-time nonexplicit intervention). Our results show that some form of instruction is better than no instruction. However, the type of instruction is also a crucial factor. Following the presentation of the results, we discuss the role of sociolinguistic knowledge in relation to L2 performance abilities. Pedagogical implications are also provided. Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Language awareness; Sociolinguistic variation; Second language instruction; French
1. Introduction The study reported in this article examines the relationship between instruction and the sociolinguistic awareness of intermediate-level US university learners of French, focusing on one type of sociostylistic variation: the presence versus the absence of the proclitic negative morpheme ne. Sociolinguistic awareness is defined here as awareness or knowledge of variable L2 forms (e.g., lexical, grammatical, phonological variables) and of their social and/or stylistic significance in relation to contexts of use, social relationships, and personal identities. Variation between the presence and absence of ne in French negation is one example of a grammatical variable that carries social and stylistic meaning. The presence of ne, as in (1), is generally required in standard, formal (especially written) French, whereas its absence, as in (2), is characteristic of almost all European and North American speakers of French in more informal, everyday (especially spoken) French (for a comprehensive review of research, see van Compernolle, 2010). * Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected] (R.A. van Compernolle). 0346-251X/$ - see front matter Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2013.02.001
R.A. van Compernolle, L. Williams / System 41 (2013) 298e306
(1) a. a. b. b. (2) a. a. b. b.
299
Jean n’aime pas aller au cine´ma. Jean does not like going to the movies. Je ne mange jamais de fromage au petit de´jeuner. I never eat cheese at breakfast. Jean aime pas aller au cine´ma. Jean does not like going to the movies. Je mange jamais de fromage au petit de´jeuner. I never eat cheese at breakfast.
Despite the prevalence of ne absence in the everyday speech of native speakers of French, learner textbooks often do not present this as a viable option (Etienne and Sax, 2009). Instead, the more formal, standard ne-present form is nearly categorically presented as the correct way to negate a verb. Learners of French whose exposure to the language has taken place almost exclusively in a classroom context tend to demonstrate a preference for using ne presence; their increasing use of ne absence and sensitivity to sociostylistic patterns typically correlate with increased opportunities to interact with native speakers (e.g., during study abroad) and more advanced second language (L2) socialization (Dewaele, 2004; Dewaele and Regan, 2002; Mougeon et al., 2010; Regan et al., 2009; Sax, 2003; van Compernolle and Williams, 2009). The issue of whether, and to what extent, sociolinguistic awareness plays a role in learners’ developing control over variation has also recently been explored. Kinginger and Ferrell (2004) and Kinginger (2008) have explored learners’ metapragmatic awareness regarding the use of the French second-person pronouns tu and vous before and after participation in study abroad. They have shown that increased awareness of sociolinguistic patterns developed during a one-year sojourn in France can guide learners’ choice of pronoun as a means of indexing their L2 identities and social relationships. Likewise, in our own previous research, we have illustrated that explicit instruction focusing on sociostylistic variation in a classroom context can develop learners’ awareness of the meanings created by variational practice, which can then serve an orienting basis for their agentive use of language variants (van Compernolle and Williams, 2012a, 2012b). To be sure, and this should be emphasized, knowledge of language (e.g., sociolinguistic awareness) does not always equate to a tacit ability for use. Indeed, instructional arrangements explicitly focused on linking knowledge to use are needed, as made clear in our previous work (e.g., engaging learners in communicative tasks in which they are explicitly prompted to plan and reflect on the use of specific sociolinguistic features of language). The present study continues one part of this line of inquiry by examining the effects of different types of instruction on learners’ sociolinguistic awareness. 2. Theoretical and empirical background The value of explicit metalinguistic knowledge in L2 acquisition (SLA) and, by extension, explicit teaching “has been and remains today one of the most controversial issues in language pedagogy” (R. Ellis, 2005, p. 214). For instance, Krashen (1985) claimed that explicit knowledge (i.e., learned language) served only to monitor output, whereas others have argued that explicit metalinguistic knowledge can be converted into (DeKeyser, 1998) or interface with (N. C. Ellis, 2005; N. C. Ellis and Larsen-Freeman, 2006) implicit competence through extensive use of the L2. Paradis (2009) claims that explicit (declarative) and implicit (procedural) knowledge remain neurophysiologically distinct, but that L2 use relying on declarative knowledge can indirectly feed implicit competence. Also relevant here is Schmidt’s (1993) noticing hypothesis, which holds that learners need to notice (i.e., consciously attend to) and understand language forms for acquisition to occur. As such, drawing learners’ attention to forms and functions through instruction should be beneficial. However, despite evidence that explicit instruction does indeed help learners, there is no general consensus as to what optimal instruction entails (DeKeyser and Sokalski, 2001; Norris and Ortega, 2000). Our own research has been informed by Vygotskian sociocultural theory (SCT) of mind (Vygotsky, 1987), which treats declarative knowledge as a mediating artifact that shapes and informs thought and language use. Sociolinguistic knowledge can afford learners conscious control over their performance because it serves as an orienting basis for action. This claim is particularly in line with research on concept-based language teaching (Negueruela, 2003; Lantolf, 2007, 2008; Swain et al., 2009). As we have discussed elsewhere (van Compernolle and Williams, 2012a, 2012b), sociolinguistic knowledge often develops ahead of learners’ sociolinguistic performance abilities.
300
R.A. van Compernolle, L. Williams / System 41 (2013) 298e306
Sociolinguistic knowledge and sociolinguistic performance are not, therefore, identical or equivalent, but neither are they independent, because each influences the other in a dialectical unity. In other words, sociolinguistic knowledge and sociolinguistic performance are two sides of the same coin, each of which is crucial to learners’ agentive, controlled use of sociolinguistic features of discourse for meaning-making purposes. Our investigations into pedagogy have been an attempt to address the shortcomings of instructed language learning for developing learners’ sociolinguistic competence highlighted, in particular, by the research of Dewaele (2004), Kinginger (2008), Lyster (1994), Mougeon et al. (2010), Regan et al. (2009), and Sax (2003), among others. Pedagogical recommendations have included exposing learners to sociostylistically differentiated language variants, explaining their sociostylistic values, and providing learners with opportunities to use the variants in communicative tasks. Although previous research has drawn from diverse theoretical frameworks in explaining learners’ performance and in making pedagogical recommendations, there seems to be a general consensus that developing awareness of variation is a key component of any instructional unit. In addition, developing awareness of variation has been conceptualized as having two sides: first, an awareness of which features of language are variable (and what the variants are); and, second, an awareness of the sociostylistic values or meaning potential of the variants. In short, sociolinguistic awareness simultaneously entails linguistic knowledge and sociocultural knowledge. Our primary goal in this article is to explore the effects of different types of instruction on learners’ sociolinguistic awareness. To this end, we reanalyze and compare data used in several prior publications (van Compernolle and Williams, 2011, 2012a, 2012b) as well as previously unpublished data collected as part of our larger research program. More specifically, we compare responses to an end-of-semester sociolinguistic awareness questionnaire among three groups of students who participated in some form of instruction and two groups of students who had no formal instruction on sociostylistic variation. 3. Methodology 3.1. Participants and groups A total of 110 intermediate-level (fourth semester) US university learners of French participated in this study. These include three experimental groups in which some type of pedagogical intervention (in English, the students’ L1)1 was included in the course and two nonexperimental or control groups who had no exposure to any formal instruction on sociolinguistic variation. All groups followed the same basic syllabus and used the same textbook. Thus, the only curricular difference among the groups was the presence or absence of an instructional program on sociolinguistic variation. Table 1 provides information about each group. 3.2. The metalinguistic questionnaire As reported in van Compernolle and Williams (2011), we developed an end-of-semester sociolinguistic questionnaire in order to elucidate learners’ awareness of variation in French as a means of triangulating their sociolinguistic performance (i.e., productive discourse). One part of the questionnaire asked students to describe the difference, if any, between the following sentences, in particular 1b and 1c (i.e., ne presence vs. absence) as shown below. 1a Paul aime le chocolat. Paul likes chocolate. 1b Paul n’aime pas le chocolat. Paul does not like chocolate [þ ne]. 1 Our pedagogical interventions were designed in English, the learners’ first or dominant language, in order to allow them to consciously reflect on sociolinguistic variation, a task that is too cognitively complex for them to accomplish in their L2, French. In addition, within the Vygotskian framework espoused in our research, there is “no contradiction between using English to mediate understanding of a concept that is then applied to understanding how French ‘works’ and its subsequent use” (Swain et al., 2009; pp. 7e8). To be sure, research into the use of an L2 to mediate complex cognitive functions is neededdthat is, to what extent can the L2 be used not only as a communicative tool (i.e., proficiency) but as a psychological tool directed inward to mediate individual cognitive activity.
R.A. van Compernolle, L. Williams / System 41 (2013) 298e306
301
Table 1 Description of groups. Group Experimental groups Sp08 A (N ¼ 24) Fa06 EI (N ¼ 22) Fa06 NEI (N ¼ 22)
Control groups Sp08 B (N ¼ 24) Sp08 C (N ¼ 18)
Description Sociolinguistic features of French incorporated into all aspects of the curriculum, including explicit instruction about variation, opportunities to use variation, and assessments of metalinguistic knowledge about variation (e.g., on formal exams) (see van Compernolle & Williams, 2012a). One-time intervention at mid-semester in which students analyzed various texts representing stylistically differentiated levels of discourse. Explicit feedback and instruction provided by instructor (see van Compernolle & Williams, 2011). One-time intervention at mid-semester in which students analyzed various texts representing stylistically differentiated levels of discourse. No feedback or explicit instructions provided (see van Compernolle & Williams, 2011). No formal instruction on sociolinguistic variation. The instructor was a French NS from Western France who had taught at the university level for over 10 years. No formal instruction on sociolinguistic variation. The instructor was a NNS of French in her 2nd year of university teaching.
1c Paul aime pas le chocolat. Paul does not like chocolate [ ne]. As an extension of this previous study, we administered this same questionnaire to the Spring 2008 experimental group as well as the two nonexperimental groups (see Table 1). 3.3. Coding procedures Responses to the questionnaire were blinded (i.e., given a random alphanumeric code) and shuffled together in order to minimize any bias during coding. Both researchers independently coded all responses on a scale of 0e3 (see Table 2; see also van Compernolle and Williams, 2011). A zero means that the student did not identify the locus of variation (i.e., ne presence vs. absence) or provide an accurate explanation. A 1 means that the locus of variation was identified, but the explanation was either not accurate or completely absent. A 2 means that the locus of variation was identified, but the explanation was somewhat unclear and/or incomplete. A 3 means that the locus of variation was identified and an accurate explanation was given in terms of formality and/or context. Inter-rater agreement was over 90%. In the cases where there was a disagreement, a third person (a very experienced, full-time instructor of French) was asked to provide an assessment. Incidentally, the only coding disagreements centered on whether a student should receive a 0 vs. 1, or a 2 vs. 3 e that is, there was no disagreement as to whether the response was more or less accurate (2 or 3) or inaccurate (0 or 1). 4. Results Our first level of analysis explores the overall distribution of scores on the sociolinguistic questionnaire. Table 3 displays these results (observed frequencies of scores and percentages). As can be seen in the data, the highest proportions of 3s occur in the two groups who received explicit instruction (i.e., Sp08 A and Fa06 EI), with the Sp08 A group having the highest proportion of 3s. At the same time, none of the Sp08 A students received a 0 or 1 on the questionnaire. The Fa06 NEI group, who were exposed to but not explicitly instructed on sociostylistic variation, received relatively lower scores. Over one third received a score 1, just under one third received a 3, 22.7% received a 2, and two students received a 0. The two control groups, for their part, are markedly different. Over one half of the Sp08 B group, whose teacher was an experienced teacher and NS of French, scored a 3, just under one third a 0, three students received a 1, and a single student received a 2. By contrast, almost two thirds of the Sp08 C group, whose teacher was a novice teacher and NNS of French, received a 0. 1s, 2s, and 3s are approximately equally distributed across two, three, and two students, respectively. Mean scores for the groups (Fig. 1) indicate a general positive correlation between the amount and quality of explicit instruction and sociolinguistic awareness. The Sp08 group scored the highest (M ¼ 2.89), followed by Fa08 EI
R.A. van Compernolle, L. Williams / System 41 (2013) 298e306
302
Table 2 Qualitative scoring definitions and examples. Score
Definition
3
Identifies locus of variation and provides an accurate explanation in terms of formality and/or context.
Examples
2
Identifies locus of variation but provides an unclear or incomplete explanation.
1
Identifies locus of variation but provides an inaccurate or no explanation.
0
Does not identify the variation or provide an accurate explanation.
Simply put, 1b is more formal than 1c. It is also technically “more” grammatically correct (and thus is found more frequently in writing, such as books & newspaper articles). 1c is more often encountered in casual conversation (online or in person). Both effectively communicate the same thing: that Paul dislikes chocolate. Both 1b and 1c are negative. However 1b is more formal because it uses the ne as well. In class whenever we looked at different scenes [from films] or papers with a variety of formal levels, the more formal ones always used ne. The main difference between 1b and 1c is that 1c doesn’t have ne. I think this is so because maybe one way is more formal than the other way. (1b.) has the “ne” in front of the verb, “aimer” and is the [sic] followed by “pas” to finish the negation. (1c.) however doesn’t used “ne” in front of the verb to negate it. “Pas” is the only hint of negation and it follows the verb. Perhaps (1c.) is more informal. The difference between “n’aime pas” and “aime pas” is that the later [sic] is more like an abbreviation. It’s understood w/the pas in place w/o having to use the ne. The difference between 1b and 1c is that first and foremost 1b uses n’ before the verb and 1c only uses pas after the verb. If translated 1b may refer as “Paul does not like chocolate”. If 1c is translated one can see that Paul likes not the chocolate. It is still the same sentence, except without the ne...pas negation. Perhaps the 1b sentence is more formal than the second. In sentence 1b. (Paul n’aime pas le chocolat) e a negation e ne n’aime e is used. In sentence 1cdthere is no negation present. In French ne when placed before the verb we automatically assume its [sic] negating a verb and its [sic] one of those things you learn in french [sic] and just accept it for what it is. Because ne sounds really close to no that it is how I distinguish them.
(M ¼ 2.50), Sp08 B (M ¼ 1.83), Fa06 NEI (M ¼ 1.77), and finally Sp08 C (M ¼ 0.78). What is interesting here is that the Sp08 B group, who received no formal instruction on sociostylistic variation, slightly outperformed the Fa06 NEI group, who participated in an implicit instruction intervention. It should be noted, however, that the instructor of this group often omitted ne in her speech and, in a conversation with one the authors, recalled having explained e at least superficially e ne variation to her class. These descriptive statistics suggest that explicit instruction is indeed beneficial to developing learners’ sociolinguistic awareness. In addition, incorporating variation into the curriculum (Sp08 A) is more effective than a one-time intervention (Fa06 EI). Our second level of analysis seeks to explore whether the differences among groups are statistically significant. To do so, we performed the nonparametric Wilcoxon ManneWhitney rank-order test of significance to establish independence among the groups. The results are provided in Table 4. The data show that that the difference among the groups is statistically significant at the p ¼ .001 level. This confirms our hypothesis that the instruction in general is beneficial to learners’ sociolinguistic awareness. Another important finding here are differences in variance, as indicated by the standard deviation and shown in the overall distribution of scores in Table 3. The Sp08 A group had the least variance (SD ¼ 0.34), followed by Fa06 EI Table 3 Distribution of scores. Group
Sp08 A Fa06 EI Fa06 NEI Sp08 B Sp08 C
Score (%) 0
1
2
e 1 2 7 11
e 3 (13.6) 8 (36.4) 3 (12.5) 2 (11.1)
3 2 5 1 3
(4.7) (9.1) (29.2) (61.1)
3 (12.5) (9.0) (22.7) (4.1) (16.7)
21 16 7 13 2
(87.5) (72.7) (31.8) (54.2) (11.1)
R.A. van Compernolle, L. Williams / System 41 (2013) 298e306
303
Fig. 1. Bar graph of mean scores.
(SD ¼ 0.91), Fa06 NEI (SD ¼ 1.02), Sp08 B (SD ¼ 1.37), and finally Sp08 B (SD ¼ 1.37). Interestingly, although the instructor for the Sp08 B group may have explained ne variation in her class, which may have resulted in a higher mean score, it was not equally effective in drawing all learners’ attention to this variation. This is not surprising given the fact that this explanation was incidental or made in passing, rather than incorporated as part of a formal pedagogical unit. We also performed chi-square tests to compare individual groups. Statistical significance was set at the p < .05 level. These results are given in Table 5. Our analysis shows that the difference between each pair was statistically significant, with the exception of the Sp08 B vs. Fa06 NEI comparison. This finding suggests that there may be no difference in benefit between simple exposure to variation during a pedagogical task (Fa06 NEI) and a teacher’s in-passing comment or explanation (Sp08 B). However, there is a difference between organized explicit one-time instruction (Fa06 EI) and exposure (Fa06 EI vs. Fa06 NEI; see van Compernolle and Williams, 2011), as well as between organized one-time instruction and in-passing explanation (Fa06 EI vs. Sp08 B). In addition, the difference between the Sp08 A group and the Fa06 EI group was significant, indicating that the length and quality of instruction is an important factor. Finally, the Sp08 C group was outperformed by all other groups, which may be indicative of a lack of variation in the teacher’s discourse and explanations e even in passing e of variation. To be sure, this explanation is merely speculative since we do not have access to recordings of this instructor’s teaching practices. 5. Discussion 5.1. Summary and interpretation The results reported above provide insight into our understanding of the role of instruction in the development of sociolinguistic awareness. Our first research question aimed to address whether instruction, in general, is beneficial to learners’ sociolinguistic awareness. Our findings suggest that learners do indeed benefit more from explicit instruction than simple exposure. Even an explicit comment or explanation made in passing may be somewhat beneficial to learners (i.e., the Sp08 B group) as is an instructional unit in which learners are exposed to variants without an explicit explanation of the variation (i.e., the Fa06 NEI group). Table 4 Results of Wilcoxon ManneWhitney rank-order test of significance. Group
N
Mean score
SD
Mean rank
Sp08 A Fa06 EI Sp08 B Fa06 NEI Sp08 C
24 22 24 22 18
2.89 2.50 1.83 1.77 0.78
0.34 0.91 1.37 1.02 1.11
76.44 67.48 52.63 47.61 26.42
Chi-square ¼ 35.919, df ¼ 4, p ¼ .001.
R.A. van Compernolle, L. Williams / System 41 (2013) 298e306
304
Table 5 Individual comparisons among groups. Comparison
Sig. (p < .05)
Sp08 A vs. Fa06 EI Fa06 EI vs. Sp08 B Fa06 EI vs. Fa06 NEIa Sp08 vs. Fa06 NEI Fa06 NEI vs. Sp08 C
U U U NS U
a
As reported in van Compernolle and Williams (2011).
Our second research question addressed more specifically the type of instruction provided to learners. Our results clearly show that explicit instruction that is intentionally organized to promote learners’ sociolinguistic awareness (i.e., Sp08 A and Fa06 EI) is the most successful form of instruction. In addition, one-time interventions (Fa06 EI) do not result in the same learning outcomes as a fully integrated curriculum (Sp08 A). This is perhaps unsurprising given the findings reported by Lyster (1994), who showed that integrating instruction on the pronouns tu and vous throughout an academic term helped learners develop a better understanding of these pronouns. It is also noteworthy that the Fa06 NEI group has a large proportion of 1s and 2s. As we mentioned above, sociolinguistic awareness entails two dimensions: first, awareness of which features are variable and what the variants are; and second, awareness of the sociostylistic values associated with the variants. Scores of 1 and 2 indicate that these learners developed some understanding of the linguistic (i.e., awareness of the fact of variation) but not of the sociostylistic (i.e., formal vs. everyday or informal) dimension of this one type of variation. In other words, they seem to be aware that ne can be present or absent but not to have understood the social meaning of this variation. By contrast, students in the Fa06 EI and Sp08 A groups appear to have developed an awareness of both the linguistic and sociostylistic dimensions, as indicated by the high proportions of 3s (72.7 and 87.5%, respectively). As such, while rather implicit forms of instruction may be sufficient for drawing learners’ attention to variation between forms, explicit instruction may be necessary to lead learners toward an understanding of the sociostylistic values or meaning potential of the variants. As we have shown elsewhere (van Compernolle and Williams, 2011, 2012c), learners are often capable of identifying variation with relative ease during awareness-raising tasks, but they encounter problems when asked to formulate hypotheses about the sociostylistic meaning of the variation, which requires explicit assistance from a teacher (see also Kinginger, 1998). Although we are advocates of promoting sociolinguistic awareness, we do not believe that this should be the sole objective of instructional programs. In fact, as noted above, within our sociocultural theoretic perspective, sociolinguistic awareness and performance abilities form a dialectical unity. Both aspects of language learning and language use are necessary for the development of one’s capacity to use variation for meaning-making purposes. 5.2. Sociolinguistic awareness does not equate to control over variation As noted in the introduction, developing sociolinguistic awareness does not necessarily entail the concomitant development of control over variation in productive discourse. This observation is in line with the collective body of instructed SLA literature, where it is generally accepted that knowing a rule of grammar (explicit or declarative knowledge), for example, does not necessarily mean that a learner can or will use that rule appropriately (R. Ellis, 2005). As we have reported elsewhere (van Compernolle and Williams, 2011, 2012a), learners who develop awareness of both the linguistic and sociostylistic dimensions of variation may not demonstrate control over the variation in performance. To be sure, there are many factors at work here, including learners’ individual histories, their disposition to variational practice, and their interpretations of performance tasks, but it remains that explicit knowledge and performance abilities, though related, are not identical. 5.3. Use of variation does not equate to sociolinguistic awareness Another important issue is that the use of variation in language production does not necessarily equate to sociolinguistic awareness. While performance data have traditionally been the sole source of data for documenting and evaluating language learners’ level(s) of sociolinguistic competence, we argue that this is not sufficient (see also
R.A. van Compernolle, L. Williams / System 41 (2013) 298e306
305
Kinginger, 2008; Kinginger and Ferrell, 2004). In a recent study (van Compernolle and Williams, 2011), we documented the case of one learner who demonstrated native-like patterns of variation in the use of ne presence and absence. We argued that because this student learned French in Belgium, as opposed to in a classroom, she had acquired some of the sociolinguistic patterns of NS communities. However, on the sociolinguistic questionnaire, she was not able to identify, much less explain, variation between ne absence and presence. In fact, she qualified the neabsent sentence as not being negative because ne was not present. In short, although she may have nonconsciously acquired some sociolinguistic patterns, her lack of sociolinguistic awareness e and, thus, control over the variation e could lead to negative social consequences in the future (e.g., using the ne-absent form in a context where ne presence is required or at least expected). 5.4. Sociolinguistic awareness can lead (to) controlled use of variation Although sociolinguistic awareness and sociolinguistic performance are not identical, they are related inasmuch as conscious knowledge about sociostylistic variation can lead (to) controlled use of variation (van Compernolle and Williams, 2012a, 2012b). By this, we mean that sociolinguistic awareness can e through instruction e develop ahead of one’s performance abilities; in turn, controlled use of variation e that is, agentive, purposeful variational practice e may develop as learners internalize their sociolinguistic knowledge as a cognitive tool. This claim is one of the central tenets of Vygotskian approaches to developmental education (see Negueruela, 2008). It also finds support in Paradis’ (2009) neurolinguistic account of declarative and procedural determinants of L2s. In short, Paradis’ argument is that adult L2 learners rely extensively on their metalinguistic knowledge, which is subserved by their declarative memory system. Through extensive use of the L2, adult learners may be able to “speed up” (i.e., accelerate) their access to this explicit knowledge sufficiently to pass for native-like L2 use. This means that sociolinguistic awareness can in fact serve to guide learners’ controlled use of variation, which at first may be slow and deliberate, but e through extensive use of the L2 over time e may be sufficiently accelerated to be perceived as automatic. 6. Conclusion Our research has illustrated that language learners’ sociolinguistic awareness benefits from explicit instruction that is intentionally organized to draw their attention to both the linguistic and the sociocultural dimensions of variation in language. In addition, sociolinguistic awareness e though not necessarily a direct index of one’s performance abilities e may lead to controlled use of variation for meaning-making purposes (van Compernolle and Williams, 2012b). In line with Paradis’ (2009) neurolinguistic theory of adult SLA, this controlled use of L2 variants may be sufficiently accelerated through extensive L2 use to appear automatic. However, regardless of how accelerated access to sociolinguistic awareness may become, it remains an important psychological tool that is not only verbalizable or declarable but, in fact, frames a learner’s cognitive functioning, including language use. Although we have focused on only a single type of sociolinguistic variation in French (i.e., presence vs. absence of ne in verbal negation), our research holds clear implications for L2 pedagogy. As we have shown, learners’ sociolinguistic awareness is best developed in conditions where sociolinguistic variation and its social meaning are made explicit (i.e., Sp08 A and Fa06 EI). It is also the case that when such pedagogy is systematic and recurrent (i.e., Sp08 A), rather than a one-time intervention, there are improved learning outcomes in terms of sociolinguistic awareness. We would like to point out, however, that the Sp08 A class did not simply have repeated or multiple awareness-raising tasks devoid of any link to communicative language use. On the contrary, because the idea was to integrate sociolinguisticsfocused instruction into the curriculum systematically, the learners’ developing conscious knowledge of language was always linked to communicative tasks through pretask planning and posttask reflection in collaboration with their teacher and other students. As we have shown elsewhere (van Compernolle and Williams, 2012a, 2012b), the link between awareness and performance is not a one-way causal relationship. Performance is not simply a result of conscious learning about sociolinguistic variation and social meaning (i.e., sociolinguistic awareness). Rather, conscious learning creates the conditions for the development of performance abilities, which in turn can create the conditions for the further growth of conscious knowledge if the link between awareness and performance is made explicit through pedagogical arrangements, and this is the key pedagogical implication. Awareness-raising tasks and communicative tasks cannot be designed in isolation of one another. Rather, their relationship must be explicit, and the teacher e through pedagogy e must forge students’ understanding of the link between awareness and performance.
306
R.A. van Compernolle, L. Williams / System 41 (2013) 298e306
References DeKeyser, R.M., 1998. Beyond focus on form: cognitive perspectives on learning and practicing second language grammar. In: Doughty, C., Williams, J. (Eds.), Focus on Form in Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 42e66. DeKeyser, R., Sokalski, K., 2001. The differential role of comprehension and production practice. In: Ellis, R. (Ed.), Form-focused Instruction and Second Language Learning. Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 81e112. Dewaele, J.-M., 2004. The acquisition of sociolinguistic competence in French as a foreign language: an overview. J. French Lang. Stud. 14, 301e319. Dewaele, J.-M., Regan, V., 2002. Maıˆtriser la norme sociolinguistique en interlangue franc¸aise: Le cas de l’omission variable de ‘ne’. J. French Lang. Stud. 12, 123e148. Ellis, N.C., 2005. At the interface: dynamic interactions of explicit and implicit language knowledge. Stud. Second Lang. Acquis. 24, 143e188. Ellis, R., 2005. Principles of instructed language learning. System 33, 209e224. Ellis, N.C., Larsen-Freeman, D., 2006. Language emergence: implications for applied linguistics e introduction to the special issue. Appl. Linguist. 27, 558e589. Etienne, C., Sax, K., 2009. Stylistic variation in French: bridging the gap between research and textbooks. Modern Lang. J. 93, 584e606. Kinginger, C., 1998. Videoconferencing as access to spoken French. Modern Lang. J. 82, 502e513. Kinginger, C., 2008. Language learning in study abroad: case studies of Americans in France. Modern Lang. J. 92 (s1) Kinginger, C., Farrell, K., 2004. Assessing development of meta-pragmatic awareness in study abroad. Front. Interdis. J. Study Abroad X, 19e42. Krashen, S.D., 1985. The Input Hypothesis: Issues and Implications. Longman, New York. Lantolf, J.P., 2007. Conceptual knowledge and instructed second language learning. In: Fotos, S., Nassaji, H. (Eds.), Form-focused Instruction and Teacher Education: Studies in Honour of Rod Ellis. Oxford University Press, Oxford, England, pp. 35e54. Lantolf, J.P., 2008. Praxis and classroom L2 development. Estudios de lingu¨´ıstica inglesia aplicada 8, 13e44. Lyster, R., 1994. The effect of functional-analytic teaching on aspects of French immersion students’ sociolinguistic competence. Appl. Linguist. 15, 263e287. Mougeon, R., Nadasdi, T., Rehner, K., 2010. The Sociolinguistic Competence of Immersion Students. Multilingual Matters, Bristol. Negueruela 2003. Negueruela, E., 2003. A Sociocultural Approach to Teaching and Researching Second Language: Systemic-theoretical instruction and second language development. Unpublished doctoral dissertation: The Pennsylvania State University. Negueruela, E., 2008. Revolutionary pedagogies: learning that leads (to) second language development. In: Lantolf, J.P., Poehner, M.E. (Eds.), Sociocultural Theory and the Teaching of Second Languages. Equinox, London, pp. 189e227. Norris, J.M., Ortega, R., 2000. Effectiveness of L2 instruction: a research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Lang. Learn. 50, 417e528. Paradis, M., 2009. Declarative and Procedural Determinants of Second Languages. John Benjamins, Amsterdam. Regan, V., Howard, M., Leme´e, I., 2009. The Acquisition of Sociolinguistic Competence in a Study Abroad Context. Multilingual Matters, Bristol. Sax, K., 2003. The acquisition of stylistic variation by American learners of French. Doctoral dissertation, Indiana University, Bloomington. Schmidt, R., 1993. Consciousness, learning and interlanguage pragmatics. In: Kasper, G., Blum-Kulka, S. (Eds.), Interlanguage Pragmatics. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 21e42. Swain, M., Lapkin, S., Knouzi, I., Suzuki, W., Brooks, L., 2009. Languaging: University students learn the grammatical concept of voice in French. Modern Lang. J. 93, 5e29. van Compernolle, R.A., 2010. The (slightly more) productive use of ne in Montreal French chat. Lang. Sci. 32 (4), 447e463. van Compernolle, R.A., Williams, L., 2009. Variable omission of ne in real-time French chat: a corpus-driven comparison of educational and noneducational contexts. Can. Modern Lang. Rev. 65 (3), 413e440. van Compernolle, R.A., Williams, L., 2011. Metalinguistic explanations and self-reports as triangulation data for interpreting L2 sociolinguistic performance. Int. J. Appl. Ling. 21 (1), 26e50. van Compernolle, R.A., Williams, L., 2012a. Teaching, learning, and developing L2 French sociolinguistic competence: a sociocultural perspective. Appl. Ling. 33 (2), 184e205. van Compernolle, R.A., Williams, L., 2012b. Reconceptualizing sociolinguistic competence as mediated action: identity, meaning-making, agency. Modern Lang. J. 96 (2), 234e250. van Compernolle, R.A., Williams, L., 2012c. Promoting sociolinguistic competence in the classroom zone of proximal development. Lang. Teach. Res. 16 (1), 39e60. Vygotsky, L.S., 1987. The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky. In: Rieber, R.W. (Ed.). In: Carton, A.S. (Ed.), Problems of General Psychology. Including the Volume Thinking and Speech, vol. 1. Plenum, New York.