Dias Wicaksono
2201410026
Introduction to Second Language Acquisition
103-105
Summary of Social Aspects of Interlanguage
Three different approaches to incorporate a social angle on study of L2 acquisition can be
identified as:

The first views interlanguage as consisting of different ‘styles' which learners call
upon under different conditions of language use.

The second concerns how social factors determine the input that leraners use to
construct their interlanguage.

The third considers how the social identities that learners negotiate in their
intercations with native speakers shape their opportuniies to speak and to learn an L2.
I.
Interlanguage as a stylistic continuum
Elaine tarone has proposed that interlanguage involves a stylistic continuum.
She argues that learners develop a capability for using L2 and that this underlies all
regulr behaviour. At one end of continuum is the careful style, evident when learners
are consciously attending to their choice of linguistic forms, as when they feel the
need to be’correct’. Moreover, the continuum is vemacular style, evident when
learners are making spontaneous choices of linguistic form, as is likely in free
conversation. Tarone’s idea of interlanguage as a stylistic continuum is attractive in a
number of ways. It explains why learner language is variable. It suggests that an
interlanguage grammar, although different from a native speaker’s grammar, is
constructed according to the same principles, for native speakers have been shown to
posses a similar range of syles. It relates language use to language learning. However,
as Tarone herself has acknowledged, the model also has a number of problems. First,
later research has shown that learners are not always most accurate in their careful
style and least accurate in their vernacular style. Sometimes L2 speakers show
greatest accuracy in the vernacular style, for example when a specific grammatical
feature is of importance for conveying a particular meaning in conversation.
A second problem is that the role of social factors remains unclear. Nativespeakers’ style-shift in accordance with non-familiar addresses, especially if they are
socially subordinate to them, and a vernacular style with familiar addresses who are
their social equals. In the other words, style-shifting among native speakers reflect the
social group belong to. In short, Tarone’s theory seems to relate more to
psycholinguistic rather than social factors in variation.
Another theory is Howard Giles’s accommodation theory. This seeks to
explain how a learner’s social groups influence the course of L2 acquisition. For Giles
the key idea is that of ‘social accommodation’. He suggest that when people interact
with each other they either try to make their speech similar to that of their addressee
in order to emphasize social cohesiveness ( a process of convergence ) or to make it
different in order to emphasize their social distinctiveness ( a process of divergence ).
It has been suggested that L2 acquisition involves ‘long-term convergence’.
According to Gile’s theory, then, social factors influence interlanguage development
via the impact they have on the attitudes that determine the kind of language use
learners engage in.
Accommodation theory suggests that social factors, mediated through the
interactions that learners take part in, influence both how quickly they learn and actual
route that they follow, this latter claim is controversial, however, as it suggests that
sequences of acquisition are not as fixed as many researchers have claimed
II.
The acculturatuon model of L2 acquisition
A similar perspective on the role of social factors in L2 acquisition can be
found in John Schumann’s acculturation model this model which has been highly
influential, is built around the metaphor of ‘distance’.
The main reason for learners falling to acculturate is social distance. This
concerns the extent to which individual learners become members of a target language
group and therefore achieve to contact them. A learner’s social distance is determined
by a number of factors. Schumann also recognizes that social distance is sometimes
indeterminate. In such cases, he suggests psychological distance becomes important
and identifies a further set of psychological factors, such as language shock and
motivation, to account for this.
As presented by Schumann, social factors determine the amount of contact
with L2 individual learners experience and thereby how successful they are in
learning. There are two problems with such model. First, it fails to acknowledge that
factors like ‘integration pattern’ and ‘ attitude’ are not fixed and static but, potentially,
variable and dynamic, fluctuating in accordance with the learner’s changing social
experiences. Second, it fails to acknowledge that learners are not just subject to social
conditions but can also become the subject of them, they can help to construct the
social context of their own learning. It is this notion that we will now explore.
III.
Social identity and investment in L2 learning
The notions of ‘subject to’ and ‘subject of’ are central to Bonny Peirce’s view
of the relationship between social context and L2 acquisition. The notion of social
identity is central to the theory Peirce advances. She argues that language learners
have complex social identities that can only be understood in terms of the power
relations that shape social structures. A learner’s social identity is according to Pierce,
‘multiple and contradictory’. Learning is successful when learners are able to summon
up or construct and identity that enables them to impose their right to be heard and
thus become the subject of discourse. This requires investment, something learners
will only make if they believe their efforts will increase the value of their ‘cultural
capital’ (i.e. give them access to the knowledge and modes of thought that will enable
them to function successfully in a variety of social contexts).
Peirce’s social theory of L2 acquisition affords a different set of metaphors.
L2 acquisitions involves a ‘struggle’ and ‘investment’. Learners are not computers
who process input data but combatants who battle to assert themselves and investors
who expect a good return on their efforts.
Socio-cultural models of L2 acquisition, such as those Giles, Schumann, and
Pierce, are intended to account for learners’ relative success or failure in learning an
L2. That is, they seek to explain the speed of learning and the ultimate level of
proficiency of different group of learners. The models assume settings where the
target language is used for everyday communication. In such situation social
conditions determine that extent of learners’ contact with the L2 and their
commitment to learning it. However, socio-cultural models may be less relevant to
foreign language settings where most learners’ principal contact with the L2 is in a
classroom.