2008 EABR & TLC Conferences Proceedings Rothenburg, Germany

Language Socialization in SLA :

The Impact of LS on the Oral Skill
Development
Vida Sadrolmamaleki, Islamic Azad University of Ardebil

Abstract

The rise of sociolinguistic and contextual approaches in L2 research reflects a growing recognition that learning
language is both a cognitive and a social process. (Hall, 1995; Losey, 1995;Mckey and Wang ,1995).To date one
sociocultural, approach in SLA research ,language socialization (LS) ,is represented by a few studies .It is supposed
that a study of small samples chosen for their diversity and similarity with regard to significant social factors
(gender, age and previous language learning experience)would be helpful to identify the variety of ways learning
occurs. Reviewing the existing LS studies and examining key concepts in SLA and EFL research ,the focus of this
study was the degree to which the students of Laboratory course got involved in the process of developing their oral
skills when different kinds of syllabus and observation were the basis of decision making about their progress
toward mastering the L2 verbal skills . Through administrating a proficiency test 34 English majors were divided
into two groups .Those who were at acceptable level had studied English at private language institutes ,some were
at abroad .So they had previous language learning experience. Two different kinds of syllabus were designed. They
were given more opportunities for class participation using communicative tasks and elicited production procedures
which could lead to a more qualified evaluation .The observation indicated that LS and class evaluation could help
learners greatly get involved in the process of learning and achieve the objectives of the course.

Keyword: class evaluation, language socialization, oral skill development, second language acquisition.

Introduction

Acquisition is about establishing new knowledge structures that takes place in social, cultural and political context.
Cognition originates in social interaction. Constructing new knowledge is therefore both a cognitive and a social
process .SLA theory‟s need for this sort of integrative perspective is one of the arguments for taking a language
socialization (LS) approach in L2 research .

This paper reviews the existing L2 socialization studies and examines the key concepts in SLA and EFL research. It
is supposed that a study of small sample chosen for their diversity and similarities with regard to significant social
factors (gender, age and previous language learning experience) would be helpful to identify the variety of ways
learning occurs .

Language Socialization(LS)

LS was grounded in the pioneering sociolinguistic work on communicative and interactional competence by Hymes
and Gumpers and on child language acquisition and discourse by Ervin-Tripp. Its basic premise is that linguistic and
cultural knowledge are constructed through each other.

With regard to the impact of socialization on language ,a child‟s development of linguistic competence is an
outcome of the language varieties he is encouraged implicitly to learn and of the activities in which children
routinely interact with others .All activities in which children participate with adults and other children are by
definition socially organized and embedded in cultural meaning systems .Thus children learn language in social
,cultural and political contexts that constrain the linguistic forms they hear and use(e.g. the acquisition of pronoun
forms in a language marking rank. status on the pronoun, i.e, honorifics(Agha,1994).These points also apply to adult
L2 learners because there is no context-free language learning and all communicative contexts involve social,

1
2008 EABR & TLC Conferences Proceedings Rothenburg, Germany
cultural and political dimensions affecting which linguistic forms are available or taught and how they are
represented. Schooling in most societies is a normal and pervasive feature of socialization. The learning of language
,cultural meanings and social behavior is experienced by the language learner as a single, continuous
process(Watson-Gegeo 1995) .The social content in which learning takes place are variable, leading to systematic
variation in learning. Moreover, ”Children who speak the same language do not necessarily take information from
talk or texts in identical ways “Schieffelin and Ochs, 1986) due to their prior experience and individual variation in
language-learning strategies.

With regard to the impact of language on socialization ,LS research has shown that children learn culture through
participating in linguistically marked events. The acquisition of syntax ,semantics and discourse practices are
fundamental to children‟s socialization in framing and structuring their development of both linguistic and cultural
knowledge .second language classrooms exhibit and teach a set of cultural and epistemological assumptions that
may well differ from that of the L2 learners‟ native culture(Boggs,1985;Health,1983;Philips,1983;Watson-Gego and
Gegeo,1994).

Cognitive Issues in LS

Schieffelin and ochs base their distinction between language acquisition and socialization on Hymes‟s(1972)
distinction between linguistic and communicative competence. It has become clear that social identities, roles,
discourse patterns and other aspects of context all effect the process of L1 and L2 acquisition (including motivation
[Peirce,1995]and consciousness [Schmidt,1995]) . All of these issues concern cognitive processes.

Drawing on schema / script theory ,Nelson (1996)argues that children‟s knowledge of language and the world
develops in everyday routine in which they participate and from which they construct “Mental Event
Representations(MERs )” ,that is , thematic and script-like representations of behavior and events. The application
of Nelson‟s work for L2 socialization and SLA lies in the concept of MERs as cognitive structures built out of
experience and language learning process.
Lave and Wenger‟s theoretical framework helps us understand the complex sociocultural. cognitive process of L2
learning in classroom and community contexts and how learners are brought or excluded from various activities that
shape language acquisition. They draw our attention to the importance of studying access, negotiation and
renegotiation and the roles in L2 learners‟ movement from beginning to advanced L2 speaker status.

Existing LS studies in SLA

L2 socialization studies have been variable in focus and uneven in quality. The first study belongs to Wong Fillmore
(1976) showing how children use formulaic speech in conversation and arrive at patterns and rules for constructing
new utterances productively. Since then only a few studies have self-identified as its framework(e.g.Harklan.1994;
HE,1997;Lasey,1995;Poole,1992; Schecter and Bayley,
1997). Most studies have a variety of weaknesses, including the need to disambiguate cultural from situational
effects, the need to interrogate key analytic concepts ,unsupported interpretive leaps from data to cultural patterns
,lack of clear procedures of data collection or analysis, lack of discourse examples and failure to address cognitive
implications in socioculturally based studies .

Duff (1995) finds that error correction, as well as linguistic form and historical context of student oral reports, are
constructed by participation. She focused on the interactions between one experienced teacher and her students in
history classes taught in English.
Willet‟s (1997) research examines the routines that support students participation in the class .She finds that
communicative and linguistic competence are jointly constructed by the children and the teacher . The children
practice and experiment linguistically in important ways including using syntax to construct meaning .Her data show
a connection between social and cognitive dimensions of language learning.
Pallotti (1996) examines features of the child„s interlanguage development via lexical items and unanalyzed
formulate affect-marking suffixes and sentence producing tactics Four studies by Atkinson and Ramanathan (1995),
Siegal (1996), Watson –Gegeo (1992) and Watson-Gegeo and Gegeo (1994), provide promising models for future
Ls research in SLA. Atkinson and Ramanathan (1995) compare the L1 and L2 language programs at the same
university, examining attitudes and practices among teachers / administrators in teaching academic writing. Their
2
2008 EABR & TLC Conferences Proceedings Rothenburg, Germany
study finds that L1 and L2 students are taught different formal expectations for writing. The L2 program promotes a
deductive essay format, simplicity and clarity, while the L1 program emphasizes form dependent on rhetorical
purpose, and preference for sophisticated, subtle thought and expression. Thus, the L1 program not only presupposes
cultural knowledge ESL students lack, but holds expectations for writing they have not been taught. Presumably the
researchers‟ next step will be to examine what happens in classrooms.

Siegal (1996) is an exemplary study focusing on the role of language learner subjectivity in the acquisition of
sociolinguistic competence by a European woman learning Japanese in Japan. Siegal‟s sophisticated theoretical
framing is matched by the thorough way in which she approaches data collection and analysis. She shows how
power and positionality issues affect interactions between the white female student and her male Japanese language
instructor. In imperfectly manipulating her interlanguage – including modality, honorifics and topic control – to
display politeness and create a voice for herself in Japanese, the student also creates examples of inappropriate
language use. It appears that cognitively she may not have worked out which expectations take precedence, and this
problem in turn affects the input to which she is exposed.

Watson-Gegeo and Gegeo (1994) examine how institutional factors constrain Solomon Islands teachers‟ use of
cultural teaching strategies in four rural primary classrooms where the teacher is teaching English (a language
neither the teacher nor students know) through English or Solomon Islands Pijin, the authors conducted a multi-year
study of rural children‟s LS in home and community contexts before carrying grade classrooms. The focus of the
article is on teacher practices but the analysis has language-learning implications in the way lessons are performed,
such that many incorrect, morphological, lexical and semantic choices are modeled or directly taught by the
teachers, leaving students confused or bored. In a fifth, contrastive classroom, the teacher teaches English to an
attentive and enthusiastic class through the students‟ first language, using a culturally derived pedagogy. In doing so,
he successfully builds om their culturally shaped cognitive expectations and skill. Watson- Gergo (1992) is
primarily theoretical and methodological piece making a strong case for the connection between cognitive and
sociopolitical processes in language education, and laying out a rigorous model for LS methodology. To illustrate
her concept of thick explanation, Watson-Gergeo reviews Watson- Gergeo and Gergeo‟s longitudinal L1
socialization study in nine families, wich showed that contrary to others studies of disadvantage rural populations,
Kwara‟ae children grow up in linguistically and cognitively rich home environments parallel in many ways to those
of white middle-class Americans, yet fail school in large numbers. A classroom discourse study revealed significant
differences in values and language use between home and school. They examined the complex institutional factors
at the national and provincial levels that shape classroom material, teacher practices and parental experiences with
schooling. These macro-level factors fold back into children‟s LS in family contexts, because parents recount their
own negative schooling experiences, fears for their children‟s school success and doubt about the value of schooling
to their children in culturally marked “ shaping the mind” sessions central to Kwara‟ae children‟s cognitive and
social development.

The Impact of LS on Oral Skills Development

Neither a strict cognitivist nor a strict socioculturalist position alone can fully illuminate the complexities inherent in
SLA. The LS perspective is only now gaining attention in SLA and a great deal of research is needed. Some
researchers do not explicitly include social factors in conceptions of cognition but implicitly recognizes the
importance of context (Long, Doughty, 1993; Gass, Long, 1996). It is supposed that a study of small samples chosen
for their diversity and similarity with regard to significant social factors (gender, age and previous language learning
experience) would be helpful to identify the variety of ways learning occurs. This is addressed by research
questions: Does previous language learning experience facilitate L2 development? Are the developmental outcomes
related to the nature of communicative tasks and the level of learner involvement? The focus of this study was the
degree to which the students of a laboratory course at first year of study of English at Islamic Azad university of
Ardebil,Iran, got involved in the process of developing their oral skills when different kinds of syllabus and
observation were the basis of decision making about their progress toward the L2 verbal skills. The subjects all were
female and 19 years old. In the first session, 34 students were given a proficiency test of oral skills in English as a
measure of their entry behavior. This showed that they were at two different levels. The interview with the students
showed that those who were at an acceptable level of English proficiency right at the beginning of the course had
studied English at private language institutes. So they had previous language learning experience. It is predicted that
3
 2008 EABR & TLC Conferences Proceedings Rothenburg, Germany
previous language learning experience facilitates L2 development and elicited production procedures including
communicative tasks will lead to an increase in production at higher developmental levels. The class was divided
into two groups This was a great success right at the beginning because two different kinds of syllabus for the course
objective were designed and some modifications of the material, class tasks and assignments – all with an emphasis
on socialization- were made for each group .The first group were the participants in communication task-based
activities in which 1)interactions 2)discourse completion 3)debates 4)opinion exchange 5) problem-solving
discussion 6)information-getting tasks 7)role plays were allowed :

1) intended to show the interactional modifications such as confirmation check ,comprehension check ,clarification
request, reformulation such as “or choice” questions or reacts (see Appendix A).

2) Intended to elicit the use of three types of knowledge –syntactic ,semantic, pragmatic-to process texts: Text A,
Text B , Text F respectively (See Appendix B ) .
3) To elicit the comparison and contrast in discussing such topics as generation gap, women discrimination,…

4) To elicit cohesion in discourse

5) to explore the influence of instruction and interaction on language acquisition in which only certain narrowly
defined target and interlanguage forms(using instructions in telephone messages) have been analyzed-along with
more global measures of fluency, complexity and accuracy – with respect to their improvement following task
performance. The activities used for the evaluation of the effects of task dimensions on learners‟ speech have
included those on the amount of planning time allowed before performance.

6) to elicit learners‟ use of communicative strategies

7) to explore pragmatic abilities in a variety of speech acts such as requests, apologies with respect to length, variety
and directness of apologies and requests .
To understand the cognitive and social complexities of language learning ,LS studies may combine ethnographic
,sociolinguistic, discourse analytic , quantitative and experimental methods, as needed.

Following methodological strategies of LS ,we began with careful description of the process of learning language
and cultural points in the students‟ classroom setting over one semester. Interactional events were recorded on a
schedule. Audio and videotaped recordings were indexed and transcribed through planned schemes. The students in
the interaction are exchange .The information can be summed up in the following table.

Study Language N Age Context & Frequency Focus

Period
Vida Turkish 34 19 4hours Every week Linguistic
Sadr English Interaction 1semester &
Elicited Pragmatic
Production Competence
Including development
Communicative
Tasks

The study has tended to elicit data using more than one method and has been developed to elicit learners‟ productive
language performance in a more concentrated fashion.

The second group used structural syllabus practicing more formulaic speech in drills. Language patterns were
presented for memorization, learning through dialogs. Laboratory studies showed that the students become relatively
competent in syntactic and semantic knowledge (see Appendix B ),but they lack pragmatic competence needed for
4
2008 EABR & TLC Conferences Proceedings Rothenburg, Germany
discourse completion . They were given more opportunities for class participation and interaction that could lead to
a more extensive and more qualified evaluation. The students beginning as a recognized participants on the edge of
the activity and moving through a series of increasingly expert roles develop their skills. Skills are built by active
participation in a variety of different roles associated with a given activity over one semester. The consideration of
students‟ contribution in class discussions , interactions, presentations, the summaries given on the students‟ tape-
recording of their interest in their portfolios, quizzes and final examination indicated that language socialization and
class evaluation could help the L2 learner greatly get involved in the process of learning and achieve the objectives
of the course.

Appendix A

The words are presented in a random order:

In the to safely hardly all two of said the

many course almost at in changed working
of field hundred be of views translation the
years can have .

Arrange above text using syntactic knowledge:

Text A

In hardy two years many in the field can of

course have changed almost all of the views
of the hundred said to be working safely at
translation.

Complete the text using semantic knowledge:

Text B

When snow becomes compressed……….

A long period of ………. Freezing ,it
Congeals into ……… and forms ice-
Streams ……… as glaciers … As we ………. .
The summits of many ……….. are covered
With snow ……… the year round.

Compare text E with F judging it as a text using pragmatic knowledge:

Text E

The user of English instantly recognizes it,
despite the Shared content, as something else: an
apology. This ,as a speech act ,is one of simple
reference : the content is the burning of the toast
and my attitude to that event is merely that of a
reporter. For example , I can refer ,in a
completely ,neutral way, to a past action of my
own and say “I burned the toast this morning” .In
simple terms , a speech act consists of its content
+ the orientation of the speaker to that content
and these together give the speech act its social
meaning .This, clearly , is more than neutral
reporting of the event. Each speech act is thought
5
of as consisting of two elements (a)the
propositional content –What i9s being referred to
; what it is about – and (b) the illocutionary
force; the meaning the act is intended to convey
or the emphasis given to it by the speaker .
However, I could take the same content and say
“I‟m sorry I burned the toast this morning”.
Text F
Each speech act is thought of as consisting of
two elements(a) the propositional content –
what is being referred to ;what is it about –and
 2008 EABR & TLC Conferences Proceedings Rothenburg, Germany

(b) the illocutionary force; the meaning the act
is intended to convey or the emphasis given to it
by the speaker. In simple terms ,a speech act
consists of its content + the orientation of the
speaker to that content and these together give
the speech act its social meaning .For example , I
can refer , in a completely
neutral way , to a past action of my own and say
“ I burned the toast this morning “. This ,as a
speech act ,is one of simple reference :the
content is the burning of the toast and my
attitude to that event is merely that of a reporter.
However ,I could take the same content and say
“I‟m sorry I burned the toast this morning “. This
clearly ,is more than neutral reporting of the
event. The user of English instantly recognizes it
, despite the shared content ,as something else :
an apology.

Appendix B

Confirmation check(from Mackey and Philip,1998):

S: what are they (.) what do they do your picture ?
T: what are they doing in my picture?
T: there‟s there‟s just a couple more things
S; a story? Couple?

The comprehension checks, speakers may have some idea that their conversational partner has not understood .
They seek to determine whether this is case or not :

Comprehension check (from Varonis and Gass,1985a):

S1 : and your family have some ingress
S2 : yes ah ,OK OK
S1: more or less OK?
There is a recognized lack of comprehension and one party seeks to

Clarification request ( from Oliver 1998) :

S1: Where do I put-?
S2: What?
S1: The p1[a] nt
S2: The P1[a] nt
S: What „ s that p1[a]nt ?

Varonis and Gass (1985 b ) :

What did you want ? A service call ?
Uh 17 inch huh ?
What did you want a service call? Or how much to repair a TV ?

(10) Eavesdropped by Gass:

T: Where do you eat your daily mails ?
S: Daily meals ?
T: Lunch and dinner <where do you eat them ?

And recasts <as in (11) ( also in (5) ) . In this example <the NS “RECASTS‟ (see section 5.3 ) the
ungrammatical sentence :
(11) From Philip (1999):
S: why he want this house?
T: why does he want this house ?

6
2008 EABR & TLC Conferences Proceedings Rothenburg, Germany
References

Atkinson, D. and Ramanathan, V. 1995: Cultures of writing: an ethnographic comparison of l1 and l2

university writing /language programs. TESOL Quarterly, 29(3), 536-68.
Brown, H.D. 2007: Principles of language learning and Teaching, Pearson Education.
Canale, M. and Swain, M. 1986: Theoretical bases of communicative language teaching and testing.
Applied Linguistics, 1(1), 1-47.
Chaudron, Craig, 2003 “data Collection in SLA Research” in C. Doughty and M. Long (eds) The
Handbook of Second Language Acquisition,.
Cook-Gumperz, j. 1973: Social Control and Socialization. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Doughty, C. and Long, M. 2003 Second Language Acquistion. London: Blackwell,.
Doughty, C. and Williams, J. Focus on Form and Classroom Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1998.
Duff, P.A. 1995: An ethnograghy of communication in immersion classrooms in immersion classrooms in
Hungary. TESOL Quarterly, 29, 505-37.
Ellis, Rod. 1990 Instructed second Language Acquisition. London: Black well.
Gregg, k. 2003 SLA theory: Construction and assessment. In C.Doughty & M. Long (Eds.) The handbook
of second Language Acquisition.
Halliday, M. 1973 Explorations in the Function of Language. London: Edward Arnold.
Lave, J. and Wenger. E. 1993: Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge
University Press.
Nelson, k. 1996: Language in Cognitive Development: The Emergence of the Mediated Mind New Youk:
Cambridge University Press.
Pallotti, G. 1996: Towards an ecology of second language acquisition: SLA as a socialization process. A
Selection of Papers, 55, 121-34.
Poole, D. 1992 Language Socialization in the Second Language Classroom. Language Learning.
Schieffelin, B.B. and Ochs, E. 1986: Language socialization. Annual Review of Anthropology, 15, 163-91.
Siegal, m. 1996: The role of learner subjectivity in second language soaolinguistic competency: Western
woman learning Japanese. Applied Linguistics, 17, 356-82.
Vygotsky, L. S. 1962 Thought and language. Cambridge.
Watson- Gegeo , K.A. and Gegeo D.W. 1994: Keeping culture out of the classroom in rural Solomon
Island schools: a critical analysis. Educational Foundations, 8(2), 27-55.
Watsdon- George, K. A. 1999 Modeling Culture in Kwara‟ae: the role of discourse in children‟s cognitive
development. Discourse studies.
Willet, J. 1997: Becoming first graders in an l2: an ethnographic study of l2 socialization. TESOL
Quarterly, 29 (3), 437-503.