Regional Variation in the Language Classroom and Beyond: Mapping Learners' Developing Dialectal Competence

Abstract

Although surveys have shown that regional variation is rarely covered in more than a cursory way in language textbooks, research has suggested that exposure to and knowledge about dialectal variation can be beneficial for second language (L2) learners' development. However, little is known about the effects of explicit instruction and exposure on learners' dialectal competence. This article presents findings from two studies that address these gaps in the previous literature. Students (N = 11) in the first study were enrolled in a fourth‐semester Spanish class designed to showcase the regional variation present in several Spanish dialects. Learners' L2 dialect comprehension and recognition were measured before and after instruction and were compared with the comprehension and recognition of a control group (N = 13) who did not receive explicit instruction. The second study examined the relationship between dialect exposure and perception for 20 Spanish language students. The results show that exposure and instruction were both significant predictors of learners' dialect perception. These findings illustrate the importance of choosing instructional materials that expose learners to regional variation and, when possible, explicitly addressing characteristics of different dialects in the classroom setting.

Sociolinguistic Competence and Interpreting Variable Structures in a Second Language

“…Additionally, L2 processing and interpretation patterns are often different from those of NSs (e.g., Clahsen & Felser, 2006; Grüter, Lew-Williams, & Fernald, 2012). As would be expected, given what is known about variable structures in L2s, interpretation may further be affected by implicit language attitudes, by individual identities, and by experiences and contact with particular speech communities (Schmidt, 2018; Schoonmaker-Gates, 2017). It is important to note that the term interpretation may be used to refer to online processing as well as more deliberate interpretation of meaning (or implied meaning), both linguistic and social, and this range of constructs further contributes to the variety of studies included under the umbrella term.…”

Role of developing language attitudes in a study abroad context on adoption of dialectal pronunciations

“…That learners adopted perceptually salient [ʃ ʒ] but not lenited‐/s/ forms, both which were present in Buenos Aires speech surrounding learners in the study abroad context (although, perhaps to varying degrees), points to the role of awareness and noticing in the adoption of dialectal sounds. Teachers can facilitate learning by drawing special attention to dialectal sounds that are different from those in the L1 sound system—such as the lenited‐/s/ phones—through explicit instruction and perceptual and auditory activities that expose learners to dialectal pronunciations and focus on learner attention on the new forms (such as those proposed in Schoonmaker‐Gates, 2017). An additional benefit of such instruction is that noticing and consciousness of the new forms may in turn aid in overall comprehension of dialectal speech, which has been shown to be challenging for L2 listeners (Major et al, 2005).…”

Do Learners Connect Sociophonetic Variation With Regional and Social Characteristics?

“…Despite the United Kingdom’s closer geographic proximity to Germany, learners’ association of be like with American English may reflect the prevalence of American speech in popular culture available in Germany 5 . In other research that has documented learner difficulty at identifying the geographic origin of speakers through regionally variable speech patterns, Schoonmaker-Gates (2017) explored a range of features associated with particular regions of the Spanish-speaking world (i.e., aspiration of /s/, the interdental fricative, velarization of /n/, lateralization of /r/, and palatalization of orthographic ll and y ). She found that learners who had received instruction on regional variation performed no better at dialect recognition than learners who had not, although the former did perform significantly better at a comprehension task.…”

“…This sociolinguistic competence, in addition to strategies for successful communication (i.e., strategic competence) and the more straightforward grammatical competence targeted in traditional classrooms, contributes to communicative competence (Canale & Swain, 1980; Tarone, 2007). This work has predominantly focused on development within variable areas of learner grammars (i.e., morphosyntactic variability), although the L2 perception of sociophonetic variation is of increasing attention to researchers (e.g., Del Saz, 2019; Escalante, 2018; Geeslin & Schmidt, 2018; Schmidt, 2018; Schoonmaker-Gates, 2017).…”