Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Linguistics

An Interdisciplinary Journal of the Language Sciences

Editor-in-Chief: van der Auwera, Johan

6 Issues per year


IMPACT FACTOR 2017: 0.644
5-year IMPACT FACTOR: 0.878

CiteScore 2017: 0.79

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2017: 0.418
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2017: 1.386

Online
ISSN
1613-396X
See all formats and pricing
More options …
Volume 55, Issue 4

Issues

Acquisition of sociolinguistic awareness by German learners of English: A study in perceptions of quotative be like

Julia Davydova / Agnieszka Ewa Tytus / Erik Schleef
  • English and American Studies, University of Salzburg, UniPark Nonntal, Erzabt-Klotz-Straße 1, 5020 Salzburg, Austria
  • Email
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
Published Online: 2017-06-21 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2017-0011

Abstract

This article examines the perception of the quotatives be like and say among German learners of English. We compare their evaluations with findings made for native-speakers of English (Buchstaller 2014). We also attempt to pinpoint the factors underlying successful acquisition of social judgements on variation. Data comes from written verbal guise tests in which participants rated stimuli doublets, each containing only one of the quotative variants, on multiple social attribute scales. Broadly, learner evaluations seem to match those of native speakers, in that speakers using be like are considered more fashionable, extroverted, etc. and less educated, pleasant, etc. than speakers using say. Learners have also developed notions about typical users of the two quotatives. We argue that the acquisition of social meanings is mediated by a combination of factors that involve, among others, proficiency and length of time spent abroad and potentially interlanguage processes that result in the creation of new meanings. Moreover, we suggest that the learners re-analyze the native-like meanings attached to linguistic variants in their L2 grammars and create new meanings that draw on resources available in their learner ecology. We call this interlanguage ideological extension. Finally, the paper raises the question of the role played by the local – German – language ideologies in the development of L2 social meanings, and points to the urgent need for further experimental work on interlanguage attitudes.

Keywords: sociolinguistic competence/awareness; L2 acquisition; quotative be like; vernacular uses of like

References

  • Androutsopoulos, Jannis (ed.). 2014. Mediatization and sociolinguistic change. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar

  • Barron, Anne. 2003. Acquisition of interlanguage pragmatics: Learning how to do things with words. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Bayley, Robert & Vera Regan. 2004. Introduction: The acquisition of sociolinguistic competence. Journal of Sociolinguistics 8(3). 323–338.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Bell, Alan & Devyani Sharma. 2014. Debate. Media and language change. [special issue]. Journal of Sociolinguistics 18(2). 213–286.Google Scholar

  • Buchstaller, Isabelle. 2006. Social stereotypes, personality traits and regional perception displaced: Attitudes towards the ‘new’ quotatives in the UK. Journal of Sociolinguistics 10. 362–381.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Buchstaller, Isabelle. 2014. Quotatives: New trends and sociolinguistic implications. Malden, MA: Wiley Blackwell.Google Scholar

  • Buchstaller, Isabelle & Alexander D’Arcy. 2009. Localized globalization: A multi-local, multivariate investigation of quotative be like. Journal of Sociolinguistics 13(3). 291–331.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Clark, Lynn & Erik Schleef. 2010. The acquisition of sociolinguistic evaluation among Polish-born adolescents learning English: Evidence from perception. Language Awareness 19(4). 299–322.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Coolican, Hugh. 2004. Research methods and statistics in psychology. London: Hodder & Stoughton Educational.Google Scholar

  • Cooper, Robert L. 1975. Introduction to language attitudes II. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 6. 5–9.Google Scholar

  • D’Arcy, Alexandra. 2007. Like and language ideology: Disentangling fact from fiction. American Speech 82(4). 386–419.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • D’Arcy, Alexandra. 2013. Variation and change. In Robert Bayley, Richard Cameron & Cecil Lucas (eds.), The Oxford handbook of sociolinguistics, 484–502. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Dailey-O’Cain, Jennifer. 2000. The sociolinguistic distribution and attitudes towards focuser like and quotative like. Journal of Sociolinguistics 4. 60–80.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Davydova, Julia. 2015. Linguistic change in a multilingual setting: A case study of quotatives in Indian English. In Peter Collins (ed.), Grammatical change in English world-wide, 297–334. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Davydova, Julia. 2016a. The present perfect in New Englishes: Common patterns in situations of language contact. In Valentin Werner, Elena Seoane & Cristina Suárez-Gómez (eds.), Re-assessing the present perfect in English: Corpus studies and beyond (Topics in English Linguistics 91). Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar

  • Davydova, Julia. 2016b. Indian English quotatives in a diachronic perspective. In Elena Seoane & Cristina Suárez-Gómez (eds.), World Englishes: New theoretical and methodological considerations. (Varieties of English around the World G57). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Davydova, Julia & Isabelle Buchstaller. 2015. Expanding the circle to Learner English: Investigating quotative marking in a German student community. American Speech 90(4). 441–478. .CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Dodsworth, Robin. 2013. Speech communities, social networks, and communities of practice. In Janet Holmes & Kirk Hazen (eds.), Research methods in sociolinguistics. A practical guide, 262–276. Malden, MA: Wiley Blackwell.Google Scholar

  • Howard, Martin. 2010. S’approprier les normes sociolinguistiques en langue étrangère – quel rôle pour l’enseignement?. In Olivier Bertrand & Isabelle Schaffner (eds.), Quel français enseigner? La question de la norme dans l’enseignement/l’apprentissage, 283–296. Paris: Editions de l’Ecole Polytechnique.Google Scholar

  • Howard, Martin, Raymond Mougeon & Jean-Marc Dewaele. 2013. Sociolinguistic and second-language acquisition. In Robert Bailey, Richard Cameron & Ceil Lucas (eds.), The Oxford handbook of sociolinguistics, 340–359. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Hymes, Dell. 1971. Competence and performance in linguistic theory. In Renira Huxley & Elisabeth Ingram (eds.), Language acquisition: Models and methods, 67–99. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar

  • Kachru, Braj B. 1985. Standards, codification and sociolinguistic realism: The English language in the outer circle. In Randolph Quirk & Henry G. Widdowson (eds.), English in the world: Teaching and learning the language and literatures, 11–30. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Kachru, Braj. B. 1992. The other tongue: English across cultures. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar

  • Labov, William. 1969. Contraction, deletion, and inherent variability of the English copula. Language 45(4). 715–762.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Labov, William. 1972. Sociolinguistic patterns. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar

  • Labov, William. 2001. Principles of linguistic change, vol. II: Social factors. Oxford: Wiley- Blackwell.Google Scholar

  • Labov, William. 2013. Preface: The acquisition of sociolinguistic variation. Linguistics 51(2). 247–250.CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Labov, William, Sharon Ash, Maya Ravindranath, Tracey Weldon, Maciej Baranowski & Naomi Nagy. 2011. Properties of the sociolinguistic monitor. Journal of Sociolinguistics 15(4). 431–463.Web of ScienceCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Levey, Stephen. 2003. He’s like ‘Do it now!’ and I’m like, ‘No!’. English Today 19(1). 24–32.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Marriott, Helen. 1995. The acquisition of politeness patterns by exchange students in Japan. In Barbara F. Freed (ed.), Second language acquisition in a study abroad context, 198–224. AmsterdamPhiladelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Meyerhoff, Miriam & Nancy Niedzielski. 2003. The globalisation of vernacular variation. Journal of Sociolinguistics 7. 534–555.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Meyerhoff, Miriam & Erik Schleef. 2012. Variation, contact and social indexicality in the acquisition of (ing) by teenage migrants. Journal of Sociolinguistics 16(3). 398–416.Web of ScienceCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Meyerhoff, Miriam & Erik Schleef. 2013. Hitting an Edinburgh target: Immigrant adolescents’ acquisition of variation in Edinburgh English. In Robert Lawson (ed.), Sociolinguistic perspectives on Scotland, 103–128. Basingstoke: Palgrave.Google Scholar

  • Nardy, Aurélie, Jean-Pierre Chevrot & Stéphanie Barbu. 2013. The acquisition of sociolinguistic variation: Looking back and thinking ahead. Linguistics 51(2). 255–284.CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Piske, Thorsten, Ian R.A. MacKay & James E. Flege. 2001. Factors affecting degree of foreign accent in an L2: A review. Journal of Phonetics 29. 191–215.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Preston, Denis R. 1989. Sociolinguistics and second language acquisition. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar

  • Regan, Vera. 2004. The relationship between the group and the individual and the acquisition of native speaker variation patterns: A preliminary study. International Review of Applied Linguistics 42(4). 335–348.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Regan, Vera. 2005. From speech community back to classroom: What variation analysis can tell us about the role of context in the acquisition of French as a foreign language. In Jean-Marc Dewaele (ed.), Focus on French as a foreign language: Multidisciplinary perspectives, 191–209. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar

  • Rindal, Ulrikke. 2010. Constructing identity with L2: Pronunciation and attitudes among Norwegian learners of English. Journal of Sociolinguistics 14(2). 240–261.CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Romaine, Suzanne & Deborah Lange. 1991. The use of like as a marker of reported speech and thought: A case of grammaticalisation in progress. American Speech 66. 227–279.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Sankoff, Gillian, Pierrette Thibault, Naomi Nagy, Hélène Blondeau, Marie-Odile Fonollosa & Lucie Gagnon. 1997. Variation in the use of discourse markers in a language contact situation. Language Variation and Change 9. 191–217.Google Scholar

  • Schleef, Erik, Miriam Meyerhoff & Lynn Clark. 2011. Teenagers’ acquisition of variation. A comparison of locally-born and migrant teens’ realisation of English (ing) in Edinburgh and London. English World-Wide 32(2). 206–236.Google Scholar

  • Schneider, Edgar W. 2007. Postcolonial English: Varieties around the world. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Statistics, Laerd. 2013. The ultimate IBM® SPSS® guides. https://statistics.laerd.com/(accessed 10 September 2015).

  • Tagliamonte, Sali A. 2012. Variationist sociolinguistics: Change, observation, interpretation. Malden, MA: Wiley Blackwell.Google Scholar

  • Trudgill, Peter. 2014. Diffusion, drift and the irrelevance of media influence. Journal of Sociolinguistics 18(2). 214–222.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

About the article

Published Online: 2017-06-21

Published in Print: 2017-07-26


Citation Information: Linguistics, Volume 55, Issue 4, Pages 783–812, ISSN (Online) 1613-396X, ISSN (Print) 0024-3949, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2017-0011.

Export Citation

© 2017 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston.Get Permission

Citing Articles

Here you can find all Crossref-listed publications in which this article is cited. If you would like to receive automatic email messages as soon as this article is cited in other publications, simply activate the “Citation Alert” on the top of this page.

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in