Running head: CONVERSATION PARTNERS AND SOCIOLINGUISTICS: REFLECTION

Conversation Partners and Sociolinguistics: Reflection Bridget Schuberg Colorado State University

CONVERSATION PARTNERS AND SOCIOLINGUISTICS: REFLECTION Abstract This paper is a reflection of my service as a conversation partner at the Academic English program at INTO-CSU through the lens of sociolinguistics. I examine the cultural factors and sociolinguistic phenomena that could have potentially played a role in the linguistic choices made by both me and the international students when communicating. Keywords: accommodation, politeness, idiolect, turn-taking, taboo, euphemism, gender, stereotype, silence

CONVERSATION PARTNERS AND SOCIOLINGUISTICS: REFLECTION Conversation Partners and Sociolinguistics: Reflection The Academic English (AE) program at INTO-CSU aims to prepare students for integration into a university in which the language of instruction is English. Thus, the focus for this program is in helping students develop academic reading, writing, listening, speaking, and study skills. However, the program also stresses the need for students to make connections with the community and get exposure to the culture in which they are living. To fulfill all these needs simultaneously, students are required to take part in the conversant program (also known as conversation partner program) for at least one hour a week. In this program, fluent English speakers talk to these English language learners either one-on-one or in small groups, so that students are able to receive more individualized listening and speaking practice than they would in a whole-class setting. This semester, I was a conversation partner for two different Listening and Speaking classes, AD300 (a low advanced class) and IN200 (a high intermediate class). One commonly-used definition of sociolinguistics is the study of how language and society interact, where society is any group of people who come together for a particular purpose (Wardhaugh, 2012, p. vii). Unsurprisingly, then, many of the topics discussed in sociolinguistics can be observed in the conversation partner setting. Perhaps the most noticeable sociolinguistic phenomenon that occurred during these

sessions was accommodation, which involves an interlocutor adopting a certain alternative when communicating with a particular person, often based on the expectations they believe others have of them (Wardhaugh, p. 113). Accommodation may come in the form of either convergent behavior, in which one attempts to make his/her speech more similar to the expectations of his/her interlocutor, or divergent behavior, in which one attempts to make his/her speech less similar to the expectations of his/her interlocutor.

CONVERSATION PARTNERS AND SOCIOLINGUISTICS: REFLECTION I believe that both the students and I were accommodating frequently, particularly in the

beginning of each new term. Upon reflecting on my own behavior, I have found that particularly when dealing with men from the Middle East, I tend to diverge; in other words, I intentionally spoke differently (at least to a small degree) than I believed these men would have expected me to speak. As the social and political policies in many of these countries continually place women in a lower class, I had a conscious desire to change the perceptions men may have either of American women or women in general; I wanted them to begin to see them as peers rather than subordinates (and apparently believed that my own speech could be a potential means of attaining this goal). For example, I intentionally used words such as we and our to establish solidarity, and demonstrate that I considered us to be part of the same in-group regardless of our sex or gender differences. I used non-verbal means of communicating this message of equality as well; I purposely looked these students in the eye when speaking to them instead of looking down or to the side (as I have observed some women from these regions do when they are speaking to males). Using my own understanding of what linguistic features are commonly attributed to women, I monitored my own speech and attempted to exclude any of these supposedly stereotypical features. For example, as women are sometimes believed to speak higher and more softly than men, I intentionally did not raise my pitch or lower my volume. I tried to minimize my hedging to convey a more authoritative image. Lastly, I tried to discuss topics that I believed these students may not typically hear a woman cover, such as politics, education, and womens rights. However, it is worth nothing that the expectations I ascribe to these men in regards to my speech may be completely different than what they are in reality. (In fact, I have never personally felt that I have been treated unfairly on the basis of my sex with any of these students; however, I have heard female teachers and conversation partners claim that

CONVERSATION PARTNERS AND SOCIOLINGUISTICS: REFLECTION they have felt disrespected on these grounds, and I wanted to avoid such a situation). It is also possible that these stereotypes of female speech are specific to my own culture; consequently, my interlocutors could be completely unaware of them, meaning my divergent behavior could have gone unnoticed completely and failed to achieve its goal. Further related to the issues of language and gender, I also noticed that the speech patterns of women and men (at least from the Middle Eastern countries) tended to provide support for the idea that women seek overt prestige while men seek covert prestige. I was often surprised at the amount of slang both the intermediate and the advanced students were not only aware of, but also used regularly and accurately (e.g. curse words, bro, cuz, and yall).

Furthermore, in writing, I saw that in informal writing to their peers, men often misspelled words intentionally (e.g. dayz instead of days). Moreover, these men tended to be very, even when their knowledge of the prescriptive rules regarding certain structures, vocabulary, or pronunciation (or the ability to apply these rules) was lacking. Meanwhile, women did not talk nearly as frequently; however, when they did, their utterances were more in alignment with prescriptive English language rules: their grammatical structures tended to be more accurate, the amount of vocabulary in their repertoire appeared to be larger, and their pronunciation was typically more precise. I also never heard them use slang. This observation could support the idea that women strive toward the standard of a language (to gain overt prestige), while men place more value in covert prestige, and believe they attain it by neglecting to speak in adherence to the standard. The issue of politeness was also prominent in these sessions. For example, one student in the intermediate class wanted me to help him prepare for the speaking section of the IELTS test outside of class. When I agreed to help him, he named the time and place we would meet so I could help him practice. At first, I was very offended that he chose rather than asking me when

CONVERSATION PARTNERS AND SOCIOLINGUISTICS: REFLECTION and where I preferred to meet; since I was the one who would be imposed upon and he was

threatening my negative face, I believed I should have at least been allowed to dictate the setting. It is possible that this student simply did not have the knowledge of how such a task would be accomplished politely in English and consequently omitted it. However, it is also possible that there is a discrepancy between what how situations involving imposition are carried out in Saudi Arabia and in the United States. Even with a plethora of similar experiences with international students and the knowledge that the rudeness behind this gesture could have been unintentional, I still found it difficult to overcome my own perception of this behavior. My initial shocked reaction to this students demand and my hesitation to acquiesce underscores the prevalence and significance politeness can play in attaining ones goals. I also found cultural differences in perceptions of politeness to be manifested in the students use of turn-taking strategies. On some occasions, I would be in the middle of discussing a topic with one student in a group and another would interrupt completely. Often, what these students said after interrupting was not even related to the topic of the conversation between the other student and me. Typically, these students who were interrupting were from countries from the Middle East. It is possible that talking over another person is not considered rude in the regions these students are from. Not waiting for another to finish talking could be so common in these areas that it does not convey any message at all. Another possibility is that it is viewed as active participation and interest in a conversation, and therefore viewed positively; it may even be seen as negative to not do so. Though I always told the student I would talk to them when I was finished with the first conversation, perhaps these students would benefit from an explicit explanation of how turn-taking typically works in North American English.

CONVERSATION PARTNERS AND SOCIOLINGUISTICS: REFLECTION The notions of taboo and euphemism came into play in the intermediate class, when, upon being asked why his favorite actor was Will Smith, a student responded, I dont know, I like black people. The student saw that I was searching for words and sensed that his statement was the cause for my speechlessness. He was confused; his message was not hateful, so why would it be perceived as negative? I was unsure how to react to this statement; it sounded politically incorrect but articulating to an intermediate-level student why he might want to avoid

utterances like this one in the future proved difficult. Since even I, as a native speaker, had a hard time conceptualizing exactly why this statement would be frowned upon in most American societies, it made me reflect upon my own understanding of taboo language and euphemisms, particularly in how they relate to politically-correct language. If I were in this situation again, I think I could tell a student that he/she should avoid any statements that sound like he/she believes all members of a particular group are all the same, even if the overall message seems positive. During my sessions with these students, I noticed that many of the students from countries in the Middle East like Qatar, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia were very eager to participate and were not shy about contributing to the conversation, while students from countries such as China, Japan, and South Korea only talked when they were asked repeatedly for their opinions. This could have been due to their own attitudes toward language learning or their perceptions of their own English proficiency; for example, perhaps the quieter students may be hesitant to talk when they are not 100% confident about the (prescriptive) accuracy of their grammar, vocabulary, and pronunciation, while the more talkative students believe that making mistakes and learning from them is the best way to become fluent in a language (or are unaware of the prescriptive mistakes they might be making to begin with). This disparity could also be a

CONVERSATION PARTNERS AND SOCIOLINGUISTICS: REFLECTION function of the classroom atmosphere students expect to encounter; many students from Asian countries are most familiar with lessons in the form of a lecture and find it difficult to actively participate in the classroom setting. Wardhaugh allows for this possibility when he says that various cultures deem certain places and activities more appropriate for certain kinds of talk (p. 258). Relatedly, I also noticed that students from the Middle East were far more likely to joke with me than students from China, Japan, or South Korea. Moreover, these students were more likely to (at least outwardly) appreciate my joking back with them. Once again, this could be a result of differing levels of language proficiency. However, one should also consider that the aforementioned contrasts may be due to a difference in attitudes toward silence and/or talkativeness for each culture. Wardhaugh mentions that silence can serve a variety of functions: it can communicate respect, comfort, support, disagreement or uncertainty; while in some cultures silence is revered and small talk is seen as wasting words, in others, talk is considered one of the great pleasure of life, and silence is an indication that of distress...confusion or dejection. (p. 257). Furthermore, the degree of

talkativeness or silence each student exhibited could also be a matter of the relationship between the interlocutors. Familiarity or closeness could be a prerequisite for anything beyond superficial communication in certain cultures. As always when being a conversation partner, determining how much to alter my language was frequently at the back of my mind. I knew for sure that for both classes I should lower my rate of speech, which I believe is considered high even among native speakers, in order to facilitate comprehension. For advanced students, modifying my idiolect was not as important, as by the time these students reach the advanced level they have already been exposed to a

CONVERSATION PARTNERS AND SOCIOLINGUISTICS: REFLECTION variety of dialects and accents. However, in the intermediate section, I was unsure how much I

could accurately represent my own idiolect. For example, usually when speaking with those who are around my age range and who do not possess authority over me, I will occasionally use bad words. I do not uncommonly use slang and often use non-standard pronunciation (e.g. using [n] instead of [] in casual speech for words ending in -ing). Ultimately, I decided that using vernacular language (defined by Wardhaugh as the language a person grows up with and uses in everyday life in ordinary, commonplace, social interactions), though it may have negative connotations in certain contexts (p. 24), was of value to the students. Even though they are in an English program that focuses on academic language, they will not only need to know the academic language required to succeed in school, but also the vernacular language that will allow them to successfully interact with other students and to fulfill basic functions that go along with living in an English-speaking country when they are fully integrated into an Englishspeaking university setting.

CONVERSATION PARTNERS AND SOCIOLINGUISTICS: REFLECTION References Wardhaugh, R. (2010). An introduction to sociolinguistics. (6th ed.) West Sussex: WileyBlackwell.

10