Sociolinguistic monitoring and L2 speakers of English

This study contributes to a growing body of research on the social meanings of linguistic variation with particular interest in the cognitive processes governing their emergence. Our research follows in the tradition of Labov et al.’s (2011) work on the sociolinguistic monitor, a cognitive mechanism...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Pflaeging Jana, Mackay Bradley, Schleef Erik
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: De Gruyter 2025-05-01
Series:Linguistics
Subjects:
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2023-0073
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
_version_ 1850205031168475136
author Pflaeging Jana
Mackay Bradley
Schleef Erik
author_facet Pflaeging Jana
Mackay Bradley
Schleef Erik
author_sort Pflaeging Jana
collection DOAJ
description This study contributes to a growing body of research on the social meanings of linguistic variation with particular interest in the cognitive processes governing their emergence. Our research follows in the tradition of Labov et al.’s (2011) work on the sociolinguistic monitor, a cognitive mechanism hypothesized to track quantitative linguistic variation and prompt social evaluations (Labov et al. 2011. Properties of the sociolinguistic monitor. Journal of Sociolinguistics 15(4). 431–463). Previous research shows that L1 English listeners are sensitive to frequency variation, but it is unclear whether this also applies to L2 listeners. This study thus replicates Labov et al.’s (2011) original experiment in a context where English is primarily acquired through L2 instruction. To test the generality of sociolinguistic monitoring, we investigate L2 listeners’ sensitivity to quantitative differences in sociolinguistic variation (ing) as well as proficiency-based variation. Since participants were L1 speakers of (Austrian) German, we tested evaluations of varying realizations of /θ/ ([θ]/[s]), /d/ ([d]/[t]), and /w/ ([w]/[v]). Experiments included 135 participants, who rated several versions of newscaster test passages regarding professionalism. Our data shows that both sociolinguistic and proficiency-based variation are monitored and evaluated by L2 listeners, albeit to different extents. This supports the assumption that the focus of the monitoring process is socially meaningful variation that includes L1 sociolinguistic but also L2 proficiency-based features.
format Article
id doaj-art-442bd017e40049e9aa3b565a3802ec86
institution OA Journals
issn 0024-3949
1613-396X
language English
publishDate 2025-05-01
publisher De Gruyter
record_format Article
series Linguistics
spelling doaj-art-442bd017e40049e9aa3b565a3802ec862025-08-20T02:11:11ZengDe GruyterLinguistics0024-39491613-396X2025-05-0163360763810.1515/ling-2023-0073Sociolinguistic monitoring and L2 speakers of EnglishPflaeging Jana0Mackay Bradley1Schleef Erik2Department of English and American Studies, 27257University of Salzburg, Salzburg, AustriaDepartment of English and American Studies, 27257University of Salzburg, Salzburg, AustriaDepartment of English and American Studies, 27257University of Salzburg, Salzburg, AustriaThis study contributes to a growing body of research on the social meanings of linguistic variation with particular interest in the cognitive processes governing their emergence. Our research follows in the tradition of Labov et al.’s (2011) work on the sociolinguistic monitor, a cognitive mechanism hypothesized to track quantitative linguistic variation and prompt social evaluations (Labov et al. 2011. Properties of the sociolinguistic monitor. Journal of Sociolinguistics 15(4). 431–463). Previous research shows that L1 English listeners are sensitive to frequency variation, but it is unclear whether this also applies to L2 listeners. This study thus replicates Labov et al.’s (2011) original experiment in a context where English is primarily acquired through L2 instruction. To test the generality of sociolinguistic monitoring, we investigate L2 listeners’ sensitivity to quantitative differences in sociolinguistic variation (ing) as well as proficiency-based variation. Since participants were L1 speakers of (Austrian) German, we tested evaluations of varying realizations of /θ/ ([θ]/[s]), /d/ ([d]/[t]), and /w/ ([w]/[v]). Experiments included 135 participants, who rated several versions of newscaster test passages regarding professionalism. Our data shows that both sociolinguistic and proficiency-based variation are monitored and evaluated by L2 listeners, albeit to different extents. This supports the assumption that the focus of the monitoring process is socially meaningful variation that includes L1 sociolinguistic but also L2 proficiency-based features.https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2023-0073sociolinguistic monitoringl2 variationsociolinguistic variationproficiency-based variationsocial meaning
spellingShingle Pflaeging Jana
Mackay Bradley
Schleef Erik
Sociolinguistic monitoring and L2 speakers of English
Linguistics
sociolinguistic monitoring
l2 variation
sociolinguistic variation
proficiency-based variation
social meaning
title Sociolinguistic monitoring and L2 speakers of English
title_full Sociolinguistic monitoring and L2 speakers of English
title_fullStr Sociolinguistic monitoring and L2 speakers of English
title_full_unstemmed Sociolinguistic monitoring and L2 speakers of English
title_short Sociolinguistic monitoring and L2 speakers of English
title_sort sociolinguistic monitoring and l2 speakers of english
topic sociolinguistic monitoring
l2 variation
sociolinguistic variation
proficiency-based variation
social meaning
url https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2023-0073
work_keys_str_mv AT pflaegingjana sociolinguisticmonitoringandl2speakersofenglish
AT mackaybradley sociolinguisticmonitoringandl2speakersofenglish
AT schleeferik sociolinguisticmonitoringandl2speakersofenglish