1

Acquisition of sociolinguistic awareness by German learners of English: A study in perceptions of quotative be like

Current word count: 10.431

Abstract This article examines the perception of the quotatives be like and say among German learners of English. We compare their evaluations with findings made for native-speakers of English (Buchstaller 2014). We also attempt to pinpoint the factors underlying successful acquisition of social judgements on variation. Data comes from written verbal guise tests in which participants rated stimuli doublets, each containing only one of the quotative variants, on multiple social attribute scales. Broadly, learner evaluations seem to match those of native speakers, in that speakers using be like are considered more fashionable, extroverted, etc. and less educated, pleasant, etc. than speakers using say. Learners have also developed notions about typical users of the two quotatives. We argue that the acquisition of social meanings is mediated by a combination of factors that involve, among others, proficiency and length of time spent abroad but, potentially, also interlanguage processes that result in the creation of new meanings. Moreover, we suggest that the learners re-analyse the native-like meanings attached to linguistic variants in their L2 grammars and create new meanings that draw on resources available in their learner ecology. We call this interlanguage ideological extension. Finally, the paper raises the question of the role played by the local – German – language ideologies in the development of L2 social meanings, and points to the urgent need for further experimental work on interlanguage attitudes.

Key words: Sociolinguistic competence/awareness, L2 acquisition, quotative be like, vernacular uses of like

1. Introduction

That language is an inherently variable, hierarchical entity subject to both internal and external influences is hard-earned wisdom universally acknowledged in expert circles. Sociolinguists committed to the study of language variation and change have been able to ascertain, through a series of investigations, that acquiring such a system is no mean feat (see Labov 2013; Nardy et al. 2013). Yet, the resulting outcome is perhaps best described as consistent and stable patterns of variability attested within an entire speech community (see inter alia Labov 1969, 1972, 2001). While acquiring linguistic forms of their mother tongue, speakers do not simply replicate the frequencies with which a given item is encountered in the input of their caregivers. They also replicate language-internal and language-external triggers of variation, although this apparently happens in a piecemeal fashion. In other words, language-specific mechanisms of variation and extralinguistic conditioning emerge at different stages of a child’s life (see Labov 2013: 249). To render the story even more complex, speakers do not simply acquire language

2

forms; they also learn, both implicitly and explicitly, how to evaluate them1. Many studies show that adult native speakers are relatively uniform in their ideological and social assessments of specific linguistic variables (see Labov et al. 2011: 431). The acquisition of L1 vernacular results in a highly complex bundle of knowledge about language and its use, also known as sociolinguistic competence, which becomes fully fledged and stabilized by young adulthood (Tagliamonte 2012: 45).

The foregoing discussion bears crucial repercussions for (variationist) sociolinguists concerned with the study of non-native speaker varieties. It entails that in order to become completely native-like in their second language, speakers need to have mastered several aspects of sociolinguistic competence. More specifically, they must acquire:

a. relevant variants and their relative frequencies b. their independent linguistic and non-linguistic constraints c. the ordering of specific constraints (Meyerhoff and Schleef 2012: 409).

Furthermore, they need to be able to identify:

d. how specific varieties and variants are evaluated in the target language community (Clark and Schleef 2010: 299) and

e. how variants contribute to stances, acts, activities, and styles that index specific social meanings (Meyerhoff and Schleef 2012: 409).2

This study focuses on (d.), which is referred to here as sociolinguistic awareness. Specifically, we seek to discover whether learners who acquired English as a foreign language exhibit evaluations of colloquial speech variants similar to those demonstrated by native-speakers of English. In so doing, we also attempt to pinpoint the factors underlying successful acquisition of social judgements on variation.

While examining learners’ acquisition of sociolinguistic awareness, we start out with an observation that acquisition of variable vernacular features and their social meanings best takes place in non-educational settings. This is because the classroom environment is not necessarily conducive to the acquisition of vernacular registers and styles. A substantial body of previous research demonstrates convincingly that prolonged exposure to the target language in an L1 speaker community ensures (fairly) successful internalisation of colloquial variants (Marriott 1995; Baron 2003; Regan 2004, 2005; Howard 2010; Schleef et al. 2011; Howard et al. 2013; Davydova and Buchstaller 2015). Furthermore, it is reasonable to assume that such prolonged exposure also enhances learners’ communicative competence (Hymes 1971). If this is the case, we can assume that the acquisition of social meanings attached to these colloquial variants is also grounded in the sociolinguistic experiences obtained by learners in a native-speaker community. In order to tackle this hypothesis, we undertake a study in learners’ perceptions of quotative be like, one of the most well-studied features of modern vernacular English. However, we will keep in mind other potential outcomes while doing this. We propose that the acquisition of the social meanings of be like by non-native speakers might result in scenarios illustrated in (H1) through (H5).

1 Here, implicit acquisition entails acquisition through everyday interactions with speakers. Explicit acquisition, in turn, implies focused attention placed on a given linguistic element through societal discourse (e.g. education, media, etc.) 2 Our need to compare our results with those of Buchstaller (2014) requires us, to an extent, to adopt a view of shared social evaluations. However, we elicited a whole variety of our learners’ individual characteristics (age, gender, education, etc.) and explored how these interact with the evaluations of individual semantic features, see section 3.2. None of these characteristics – except for proficiency and amount of exposure, which we discuss later in this article – interact with learners’ perceptions of be like. This is substantial enough evidence allowing us to make dynamic assumptions about learners’ evaluations.

3

H1: The social meanings of be like are not acquired by language learners.

H2: The social meanings of be like are acquired by language learners.

H3: The social meanings of be like are acquired by some learners, those who are more proficient.

H4: The social meanings of be like are acquired by some learners, those who have spent more time abroad.

H5: The social meanings of be like are acquired and there is evidence for innovation under transfer:3 new social meanings are created.

This paper is organised as follows. Firstly, we introduce quotative be like and comment on its related vernacular and non-vernacular uses, while contextualising our study against previous work. (The main focus of this study is on the learners’ perceptions of quotative be like. Another vernacular use of like was introduced in order to tap into learners’ sociolinguistic awareness of colloquial English variants.) We then present the method and results of the study. Finally, we embed our findings within the discussion of L2 acquisition of sociolinguistic meanings that L1 community members attach to specific language items. In so doing, we hope to be able to contribute to the debate surrounding acquisition of sociolinguistic competence by non-native speakers, an ongoing topic in the field of (variationist) sociolinguistics (see inter alia Clark and Schleef 2010; Schleef et al. 2011; Meyerhoff and Schleef 2012; Davydova 2015, 2016a; Davydova and Buchstaller 2015 as well as Bayley and Regan 2004; Howard et al. 2013 for an overview).

2. Vernacular (be) like: uses and attitudes

Like is perhaps one of the most salient features of current vernacular English speech, subject to academic scrutiny (Romaine and Lange 1991; Daily-O’Cain 2000; Levey 2003; D’Arcy 2007) and “vitriolic attacks” from the more general public (Buchstaller 2014: 200). Following Romaine and Lange (1991), Daily-O’Cain (2000) distinguishes two vernacular uses of like, demonstrated in (1) and (2). These are in contrast to the standard uses of like, i.e. like as a verb, a noun, an adverb, a conjunction and a suffix, all of which have been codified in the English grammars and dictionaries, and illustrated for convenience in (3) through (7).

(1) We have known each other for like a hundred years. (discourse particle) (2) It was like, ‘It’s none of your business!’ (quotative marker) (3) I like apples. (verb) (4) The Smiths have their likes and dislikes when it comes to playing games. (noun) (5) It tastes like butter. (adverb) (6) No one can love a family like she can. (conjunction) (7) Her poetry was, in fact, very prose-like. (suffix)

In the first example, like functions as a non-contrastive focuser or a discourse particle (henceforth, DP), (see D’Arcy 2007: 392). This use of like can be traced back to British English vernaculars spoken over a hundred years ago (Romaine and Lange 1991: 270;

3 See Meyerhoff and Schleef (2013) where innovation under transfer is discussed in more detail as well as other concepts such as rejection and replication, which relate to H1-4. While the discussion in Meyerhoff and Schleef (2013) refers to the acquisition of sociolinguistic constraints, we believe that some of these concepts are also suitable for the description of the acquisition of social meaning.

4

D’Arcy 2007: 401), although it was not until the 1950s–1960s that this form became popularized by the social groups living in opposition to the mainstream culture in New York City (D’Arcy 2007: 398).

The second example highlights the function of like as a quotative marker. Quotative markers are strategies used by the speakers in order to introduce direct speech, thought and non-lexicalised material (sounds and gestures), thereby constructing dialogue in more vivid terms. Quotative be like reportedly originated in California in the late 1970s / early 1980s (D’Arcy 2007; Buchstaller 2014) and is generally regarded as a functional, albeit vernacular, equivalent of more traditional quotatives, notably say, think and so-called zero quotatives.4

In this study, we focus on the acquisition of social perceptions of be like. It is a highly salient vernacular feature in native-speaker discourse that has been shown to be acquired very successfully by German learners of English (Davydova and Buchstaller 2015). It is also currently undergoing rapid language change, which allows us to not only study this phenomenon in more detail but also to investigate it in a language contact situation. With that said, the intriguing question is if these learners might be able to replicate the social meanings attached to this innovative variant.

A plethora of studies have been undertaken to investigate the incremental global spread of quotative be like in native-speaker Englishes (see Buchstaller 2014 for a comprehensive overview). Studies looking at the innovative uses of be like in non-native English have also begun to make inroads into the literature (D’Arcy 2013; Meyerhoff and Schleef 2013; Davydova 2015, 2016a, 2016b; Davydova and Buchstaller 2015).

Yet, it is impossible to understand if an innovative variant is likely to survive or to make any predictions about the trajectory of linguistic change unless we gain a better understanding about associations attached to the new linguistic item by the community of speakers where an innovation is spreading. In other words, speakers’ perceptions of linguistic innovations is an important factor in the analysis of language variation and change, and need to be taken into consideration (in addition to language-internal and language-external parameters). That said, several surveys have been conducted in order to explore the ideological baggage and the social meanings of the innovative quotative marker in American and British English (Daily-O’Cain 2000; Buchstaller 2006, 2014).

As a vernacular feature circumscribed to informal speech (D’Arcy 2007: 392), be like is associated with less status, and consequently judged as less ‘educated’, ‘ambitious’ or ‘pleasant’ (Buchstaller 2006: 371). However, there is evidence that vernacular be like also receives high ratings for social attractiveness and solidarity (Buchstaller 2014: 213, 216). The same is true of DP uses of like: speakers using like are felt to be more ‘attractive’, ‘cheerful’, ‘friendly’ and ‘successful’ but, simultaneously, they are also perceived as less ‘educated’ (Daily-O’Cain 2000: 75). Extrapolated from Buchstaller (2014: 213, 216), Table 1 reports native speakers’ personality judgements for be like in the UK and the US.

4 Zero quotatives introduce quoted material without any explicit verb marking, e.g. He was standing near to his friend and, ‘Why don’t you go over and say hello?’

5

Table1: Statistically significant judgments for be like by UK and US speakers (Buchstaller 2014: 213–216)

Be like use is associated with the speaker seeming more

extroverted UK and US

fashionable UK and US

British UK

cheerful UK

excited UK

good sense of humour UK

popular UK

urban UK

American US

Be like use is associated with the speaker seeming less

articulate UK and US

intelligent UK and US

pleasant UK and US

professional UK and US

reliable UK and US

responsible UK and US

successful UK and US

ambitious UK

educated UK

honest UK

The general attitudes expressed by educated native speakers towards be like have often been explicitly negative (see Daily-O’Cain 2000: 70). More recent evidence, however, reveals that older people are more likely to harbour negative attitudes toward be like; indeed, many younger people exhibit neutral or positive attitudes toward the vernacular variant (Buchstaller 2014: 208). Furthermore, vernacular like has been covered in the shroud of language myths, which are, in turn, reflective of prevailing language ideologies, yet offering insights into cultural perceptions of non-standard language. As elucidated by D’Arcy (2007: 388), these language myths include beliefs that like: (i) is meaningless and lacks articulacy; (ii) characterizes female speech; (iii) began with the Valley Girl Talk; and (iv) is linked to young people speech, in particular adolescents. Laymen seem to believe that there is just one vernacular use of like that can occur anywhere in the sentence (D’Arcy 2007). Daily-O’Cain (2000: 70) notes, however, that native speakers “stated they notice a difference in usage [between the two vernacular variants] when it is pointed out to them”.

Will EFL (English as a Foreign Language) speakers be able to pick up the sociocultural meanings attached to quotative be like? And if so, under what circumstances? Particularly, we are interested to find out whether time spent abroad in an English-

6

speaking country improves the acquisition of quotative evaluations, but especially whether this is a necessary pre-condition. Finding out about the acquisition of social attitudinal knowledge is important because it can shed light on the question of where social meanings come from, especially in language contact situations. Vernacular quotative markers, including quotative be like, are not part of the official school curriculum in countries such as Germany, and are not addressed explicitly in English textbooks and other English language teaching activities (see Davydova and Buchstaller 2015). Therefore, learners are not given ample opportunities to acquire quotative be like or any other features of colloquial English through formal instruction.

In contrast to many other European countries, German speakers of English are much less subjected to English in the media as British and American films are dubbed into German. The main way through which a learner can come into contact with vernacular quotative markers presupposes sustained spontaneous interactions with people who speak English as their native language. It is such idiomatic use of these and other discourse-pragmatic features that is “the hallmark of the fluent speaker” (Sankoff et al. 1997: 191). We take this idea one step further and suggest that the knowledge about the variable use of a particular vernacular variant is the hallmark of a sociolinguistically competent learner, whereas the knowledge about social evaluations of variable features is the hallmark of the sociolinguistically aware one. With this in mind, we conduct a study ascertaining if learners of English can and do acquire native-like judgments of colloquial English speech.

3. Method

3.1. Data collection, participants and materials

The data for this study was collected between February and June 2015 with the help of the online survey platform, Limesurvey. During this period, students enrolled on Bachelor’s and Master’s courses at the University of Mannheim were invited to complete the questionnaire, which tapped into learners’ attitudes of the English language. Students were informed that the survey would take between 7 and 10 minutes to complete. They were also instructed that they would have a chance to win a 10 Euro gift certificate upon successful completion of the questionnaire.

A total of 196 participants provided responses that were, in turn, subjected to further quantitative analysis of data. The sample consists of 126 female and 70 male respondents, which is representative of the targeted community (see Dodsworth 2013). The mean age of our participants is 23.34 (SD = 3.6). All respondents were born and raised in Germany, with German as their native language. An overwhelming majority were enrolled on a Bachelor’s degree programme (N = 101), a conspicuous proportion held a Bachelor’s title (N = 77) or a Master’s degree (N = 16); two respondents were doctoral students. Importantly, there were no trained linguists in our sample. Most respondents claimed they have been able to speak English fluently since they were 16 years old and considered themselves learners of English. Also, most assessed their knowledge of English as either advanced (N = 124) or (upper-)intermediate (N = 71). One respondent assessed his knowledge of English as basic.5 Furthermore, our informants demonstrate fairly high levels of exposure to native-speaker English through sojourns abroad, which have been argued as indispensable for the acquisition of the vernacular norms of the speech community (Davydova and Buchstaller 2015; Regan 2004, 2005). Table 2 provides an overview of frequencies of stay-abroad exposure.

5 The standard methods of measuring learners’ proficiency cannot capture the effects this study is tapping into, namely the acquisition of sociolinguistic/communicative competence which largely comes about as a result of immediate interactions with L1 speakers. Secondly and more importantly, relying on standardized elicitation tests, in addition to the immediate task, would come at a cost of exploring much less speakers.

7

Table 2: Frequencies of stay-abroad exposure in English-speaking countries (N = 196)

Number of times N (%)

four times and more 85 (44%)

three times 20 (10%)

twice 38(19%)

once 29(15%)

never 24(12%)

Note that a solid 44% of the sample exhibit prolonged exposure to L1 English vernaculars manifested through more than four stay-abroad trips to an English-speaking country. Only 12% of our respondents said they had never been abroad. The most frequently visited countries are the UK (N = 159) and the US (N = 90). Table 3 provides an overview of the amount of exposure to US and UK English in naturalistic settings.

Table 3: The amount of exposure to US and UK English in naturalistic settings

several days

several weeks

several months

half a year a year more than a year

UK 75 (47%) 48 (30%) 12 (7%) 9 (6%) 6 (4%) 9 (6%)

US 15 (17%) 38 (42%) 14 (15%) 6 (7%) 6 (7%) 11 (12%)

Table 3 highlights that 53% of all the respondents who claimed having spent time in the UK did so for at least several weeks, and 41% of the US-exposure students spent a minimum of several months in the country.6 This amounts to 83% from this cohort boasting the minimum of several-weeks exposure to US English. Also of interest is how these learners define themselves in terms of their English-oriented linguistic identities. When asked about the form of English they thought they spoke, 29% claimed they spoke American English, 22% identified themselves with British English, 15% thought they spoke German English, and 20% described their own variety as mixed, including influences from British, American and German English. Our results are fairly comparable with those reported for Norwegian learners of English (Rindal 2010: 240) Given these fairly heterogeneous linguistic profiles of our informants as well as extensive stay-abroad experiences in the UK and the US, we take into account both British and American speakers’ perceptions of (be) like. While introducing these varieties as a stable L1 benchmark into our study, we also point out that evaluations of this vernacular variant by native speakers from both sides of the Atlantic exhibit a high level of consistency and coherence (see Buchstaller 2014: 198–244).

Two online surveys replicated Buchstaller’s study of 2014 (see Buchstaller 2014: 284–294) with some moderate study-specific adjustments. They consisted of two parts and were accompanied by a background questionnaire eliciting informants’ age, sex, ethnicity, academic degree, their fluency and self-reported proficiency in English, linguistic identities and their length of residence in an English-speaking country which we

6 These are cumulative percentages. They were arrived at by adding up the categories ‘more than a year‘, ‘a year’, ‘half a year’, ‘several months’ (and ‘several weeks’ in the case of the UK exposure).

8

use as proxy to measure the amount of exposure to English in naturalistic settings (see Piske et al. 2001).

The first part tapped into learners’ covert perceptions of quotative be like and presented a verbal guise test (henceforth, VGT), a technique employed in the social sciences (Cooper 1975). In that task, learners had to read two texts placed next to each other, as illustrated in Figure 1, and were then asked to rate Speaker A and Speaker X on a variety of personality traits operationalised as 5-point semantic differential scales (henceforth, SD scales). They were furthermore prompted to assess both speakers’ age, their sex and social standing, their ethnicity and occupation, as well as their provenance.

Excerpt 1 A: I really like nuts but I am allergic to them. At first I was sceptical about seeing a

doctor. I thought “how can a doctor help me with

this?” But finally I went to see this doctor. I said “when I eat nuts I feel as if I have a

heart attack” and she was like “you will have to follow a

special diet and I will do a blood test”. She said “we need to be sure that you are

not reacting to anything else”. B: This is really interesting. A: I was like “do I have to cut out nuts

completely?” and she was like “yes you do. When you

feel better you can reintroduce them gradually.”

Excerpt 2 X: Coffee does not agree with me. When I smell it I think “oh I will just have a

little one” and then I can feel my heart burning. Y: I do love the smell. X: So I went to the doctor and had a food

allergy test and the doctor said “do you know if there is

anything you are allergic to?” I said “I definitely think I am allergic to

coffee” and she said “it might not be the coffee. It might be what you put in it”. So she tested milk and just coffee without

the milk and she said “you are right”. She said “please do not drink any caffeine”.

Figure 1: Verbal guised texts (Buchstaller 2014: 211)

Each text contained 12 lines of transcribed spontaneous speech, featuring 6 instances of quotation. Both texts had been checked by Buchstaller for regional neutrality and nativeness. The excerpts did not contain any non-grammatical or stylistically marked linguistic material in order to ensure that other perceptual cues would not interfere with the stimuli. The left-hand text contained quotative be like as a stimulus; yet it was present in only 3 out of 6 instances of quotation in order to avoid overt priming effects. The right-hand text exhibits the use of quotative say, a canonical quotative marker. Following Buchstaller (2014), we aimed for independence of the stimuli or quotative variants from the texts that contained them. In order to tackle this issue and introduce a modicum of methodological rigour, we designed two online surveys, as mentioned above, that were identical to each other, except for one crucial feature. In the first survey, respondents were presented with the stimuli as they are portrayed in Figure 1. In the second survey, the texts were swapped around but the stimuli (i.e. quotative markers) remained in their initial positions (see also Buchstaller 2014: 211). The following personality traits were included in the survey: ‘calm’ vs. ‘excited’; ‘old-fashioned’ vs. ‘fashionable’; ‘common’ vs. ‘posh’; ‘educated’ vs. ‘uneducated’; ‘annoying’ vs. ‘pleasant’; ‘casual’ vs. ‘formal’; ‘unreliable’ vs. ‘reliable’; ‘intelligent’ vs. ‘not intelligent’; ‘unsuccessful’ vs. ‘successful’; ‘unprofessional’ vs. ‘professional’; ‘responsible’ vs. ‘irresponsible’; ‘not careful to speech’ vs. ‘careful to speech’; ‘articulate’ vs. ‘inarticulate’; ‘urban’ vs. ‘rural’; ‘cheerful’ vs ‘not cheerful’; ‘hesitating’ vs. ‘fluent’; ‘impolite’ vs. ‘polite’; ‘unpopular’ vs. ‘popular’; ‘American’ vs. ‘not American’; ‘extroverted’ vs. ‘introverted’; ‘dishonest’ vs. ‘honest’; ‘not ambitious’

9

vs. ‘ambitious’; ‘clear’ vs. ‘not clear’; and, finally, ‘good sense of humour’ vs. ‘not a good sense of humour’.

The second part of the survey was designed to examine learners’ overt reactions toward two vernacular uses of like. In that task, our students were presented with a short speech excerpt highlighting the DP and the quotative use of like. This is illustrated in Figure 2.

Figure 2: The task tapping into learners’ conscious attitudes toward the two vernacular uses of like

Firstly, we asked our students to differentiate between the two uses of like and then assigned them to classify (the two uses of) like with respect to age, sex, social class, ethnicity, level of education, likely profession of its user and geographical location. We also inquired if and how often our respondents thought they used like.7 The survey was rounded off with three open-ended questions in which we asked their opinion of like in general; where they thought it came from; and, finally, in what type of talk people generally used like (e.g. gossip, news broadcasting, jokes, sermons or arguments).

3.2. Research design and statistical analyses of data

Our study follows a mixed research design, comprising both within-subjects and between-subjects analyses (see, for instance, Laerd Statistics 2013). The dependent variable was operationalized as the learners’ subjective reactions to the stimuli evaluated through the SD scales. It was measured across two independent within-subjects conditions, i.e. Speaker A (be like condition) and Speaker X (say condition), while simultaneously controlling for an independent between-subjects factor, i.e. text material containing quotative markers (Text 1 or Text 2).

Given the research design of the study, we opted for the mixed ANOVA while analysing personality traits and age (continuous variables). This statistical procedure tested within-subjects comparisons (i.e. Speaker A vs. Speaker X), while at the same time allowing us to control for the effect produced by the text (between-subjects factor). In this study, we report the effects of only those within-subjects comparisons that did not interact significantly with our between-subjects variable, i.e. text type. In this way, we excluded the possibility that the reported effect could in any way be related to the “carrier material” (see also Buchstaller 2014: 211). In the next step, we also tested if our statistically significant within-subjects effects co-vary with our learners’ individual characteristics including

a. their academic qualification; b. age at which they were reportedly able to speak fluent English; c. level of self-reported proficiency;

7 Self-reported data is not equal to actual use data but has been used quite successfully as a useful heuristic device in the previous studies exploring speakers’ perceptions of be like (Buchstaller 2006, 2014).

Please consider the uses of like in the example below:

B: This is really interesting. A: I said “do I have to like cut out nuts completely?”       (Use 1) She was like “yes you do and when you feel better (Use 2) you can reintroduce them gradually.”

10

d. time spent abroad in an English-speaking country; e. self-professed affiliations with mainstream varieties (British English, American

English, etc.) and f. sex

Statistically significant, informative interactions are reported in the results section (Figure 3 and 4). While testing for associations of like with various social categories (speaker sex, class, ethnicity, etc.), we opted for chi-square tests as the most appropriate tools of analysing data. Here, we were seeking primarily to establish: (i) whether frequency differences within nominal categories differ between nominal categories (the chi-squared test of independence); and (ii) whether frequencies differ between nominal categories (the chi-squared goodness-of-fit test) (Coolican 2004). More specifically, the VGT task ascertained if the proportion of responses assigned to Speaker A and Speaker X differed across the categories of gender, social class, occupation, ethnicity and origin. Furthermore, the overt attitudes task measured the difference in the evaluations of the two vernacular uses of like across the social categories. This applies to those respondents who, indeed, identified a difference between the two uses. The chi-square test also ascertained if the nominal responses produced by the metalinguistically less informed cohort resulted in any statistical differences across various social categories. Likewise, we employed chi-square tests in order to evaluate the self-reported uses of like. Let us now present the results of the statistical analyses of data.

4. Results

We open this section with the presentation of the results for the VGT data that tap into learners’ covert attitudes toward the innovative form. Table 4 reveals that, out of 24 traits targeted in the survey, 16 reached statistical significance and were chosen as reportable by the mixed ANOVA.8 Thus, we notice that be like triggers a wide range of consistent associations in our respondents.

Table 4: Personality judgements for be like in the Learner data (N responses: 196)

Trait F (1, 194) p-level

Be like use is associated with the speaker seeming more

extroverted 86,162 <0.001

fashionable 38,017 <0.001

cheerful 50,789 <0.001

excited 73,636 <0.001

good sense of humour 60,73 <0.001

popular 23,684 <0.001

American 102,246 <0.001

Be like use is associated with the speaker seeming less

articulate 25,106 <0.001

intelligent 26, 124 <0.001

8 Though significant in Buchstaller’s survey, the scales ‘honest’ vs. ‘dishonest’ and ‘urban’ vs. ‘rural’ are not significant in our findings and thus not reported here.

11

pleasant 33,282 <0.001

professional 111,568 <0.001

reliable 35,120 <0.001

responsible 13,049 <0.001

successful 27,682 <0.001

ambitious 8,510 0.004

educated 44,182 <0.001

The covert perceptions test revealed that the speaker using be like is deemed more ‘extroverted’ and ‘fashionable’. This is, indeed, how British and American speakers perceive a person using this variant (see Buchstaller 2014: 213, 216). In addition to this and identical to Buchstaller’s (2014) British dataset, our respondents feel that the be like user is more ‘cheerful’, ‘excited’, ‘popular’ and has a ‘good sense of humour’.

At the same time, the innovative variant also evokes quite a few negative (if only tacit) feelings in our judges. The speaker using be like is perceived as less ‘articulate’, less ‘intelligent’, less ‘pleasant’, less ‘professional’, less ‘reliable’, less ‘responsible’, and less ‘successful’. Remarkably, this is highly consistent with the way both American and British participants in Buchstaller’s (2014) study see this variant and, by this token, somebody using it. Moreover, our respondents regard the be like user as less ‘ambitious’ and less ‘educated’, which is in line with Buchstaller’s (2014) British data. Therefore, our learners replicate the social meanings attached to be like in the English-speaking world (see also D’Arcy 2007: 386). This finding is even more striking given that we are examining learners’ tacit perceptions of the linguistic variants, which is in itself a very challenging task, even for a native speaker.

Careful examination of within-subjects contrasts across a variety of respondent-related variables, however, indicated that effects obtained for features ‘calm/excited’, ‘annoying/pleasant’ and ‘articulate/inarticulate’ are, by and large, attributable to our informants’ self-reported proficiency in English. In other words, it was primarily advanced learners of English who assessed the like-guise as much more ‘excited’ and the say-guise as significantly more ‘calm’ (F (1, 194) = 47.860, p = 0.000). This cohort of learners furthermore evaluated the like-user as much more ‘annoying’ in comparison to the say-user, whom they endorsed unanimously as more ‘pleasant’ (F (1, 194) = 7.802, p = 0.039). Finally, it was highly proficient learners of English who mainly judged Speaker A, i.e. be like, as more ‘inarticulate’ in comparison to Speaker X, i.e. say, (F (1, 194) = 4.656, p = 0.077). These pronounced differences in the mean evaluations of the two guises across the three features show a tendency to reduce gradually as we move from the advanced to upper-intermediate and intermediate levels of self-reported proficiency. This is illustrated in Figure 3. Please note that the evaluations characterising the basic level of proficiency were obtained from just one respondent and thus cannot yield any generalisations. Note, however, that these responses differ dramatically from the rest of the group. This issue is worth further exploration.

12

Figure 3: Co-variation between mean evaluations of features ‘calm’ vs. ‘excited’, ‘annoying’ vs. ‘pleasant’, ‘articulate’ vs. ‘inarticulate’ and informants’ self-reported proficiency level

13

The analyses of co-variation also revealed that the effects obtained for features ‘old-fashioned/fashionable’ and ‘annoying/pleasant’ correlate in meaningful ways with the amount of exposure to native English in naturalistic settings. Figure 4 summarizes these interactions, highlighting that speakers with the most extensive naturalistic exposure to US English provide extreme ratings for both guises, thereby demonstrating a heightened awareness of the social values attached to the linguistic variant studied here. In contrast to all other groups of learners, they judge the like-guise as extremely fashionable and the say-guise as very old-fashioned (F (1, 88) = 13.39, p = 0.000). Note that these differences in judgements are similar to, but not as pronounced in, speakers with less exposure to L1 English.

Figure 4: Co-variation between mean evaluations of features ‘old-fashioned’ vs. ‘fashionable’, ‘annoying’ vs. ‘pleasant’ and the length of exposure to native English in naturalistic settings

14

Similarly, learners who claimed to have spent more than one year in the UK judge both guises in extreme terms for pleasantness. These judgements are consistent with native-speaker evaluations of those guises: the like-user gets high ratings for ‘annoying’ and the say-user comes off as very ‘pleasant’ (F (1, 157) = 3.91, p = 0.05). Learners with less naturalistic L1 exposure give similar assessments. However, they seem to be less confident in their judgments of the two speakers as they assign less extreme values to both guises. In summary, it appears to be no coincidence that learners’ assessment of the two guises should interact in significant ways with their self-reported proficiency and the amount of time spent in an English-speaking country. We will address this issue in the upcoming discussion of the findings.

Let us now, however, explore the social types our learners attach to each linguistic variant, i.e. quotative be like and quotative say. To begin with, the speaker featured in the text containing quotative be like is assessed as much younger than the speaker featured in the text containing quotative say. Speaker A (be like) is thus estimated to be 22 years of age on average, whereas Speaker X (say) is estimated to be 33 years old. The test of within-subjects effects indicates that this difference is statistically significant (F (1, 193) = 106,568, p < 0.000). Our learners’ perceptions regarding age of be like users are very much in line with how native speakers assessed the like and non-like guises. Buchstaller (2014: 227, 229) points to the mean age ratings between 26.8 and 23.24 for the like guise, and to the mean age ratings between 35.2 and 32.82 for the non-like guise in her American and British data respectively.

We will now investigate how the learners perceive the two speakers featured in like- and non-like guise with respect to other social characteristics. Table 5 presents associations of be like and say with speaker sex, social class, ethnicity, professional occupation and origin.

Table 5: Associations of be like and say with speaker sex, social class, ethnicity, professional occupation and origin (responses = 392)

Social category

Speaker A (be like)

N (%)

Speaker X (say)

N (%) χ²

test9

Sex male 56 (14%) 94 (24%) χ²(1) = 15.594,

p < 0.000 female 140 (36%) 102 (26%)

Social class working 97 (25%) 37 (0.09%) χ²(1) = 40.819,

p < 0.000 middle 99 (25%) 159 (41%)

Ethnicity White 146 (37%) 157 (40%)

χ²(4) = 17.211,

p < 0.01

Latino 16 (4%) 3 (0.7%)

Asian 4 (0.1%) 14 (4%)

Black 11 (3%) 5 (1%)

Other 19 (5%) 17 (4%)

Occupation academic 46 (12%) 143 (35%) χ²(1) = 96.133,

p < 0.000 non-academic 150 (38%) 53 (14%)

Origin UK 27 (7%) 110 (28%) χ²(2) = 101.803, p < 0.000 US 146 (37%) 49 (13%)

9 The statistical analyses employed here are the chi-squared tests of independence.

15

Other 23 (6%) 37 (9%)

First and foremost, we can observe a very clear association between the use of be like and female speakers. This suggests that our respondents relate the innovative variant to speech produced by women. This is consistent with the sociolinguistic profile of be like both in the UK (Buchstaller 2006, 2014) and the US (Daily-O-Cain 2000; Buchstaller 2006, 2014). Whereas be like does not evoke any class-specific associations (25% vs. 25%), it is quite interesting that the learners assign the speaker using the more traditional variant to the middle-class cohort. Thus, whereas our students are not really sure of the social provenance of the be like user, they are, indeed, quite certain of the social standing of the person in the other guise. Both guises are perceived as being produced by white speakers. Furthermore, our informants feel quite strongly that Speaker A (the like-guise) exercises a non-academic occupation, whereas Speaker X (the non-like guise) is an academic (38% and 35% respectively). In Buchstaller’s (2014: 228–230) study, native speakers from the UK and the US classified the be-like guise as stemming from a less educated person with a working-class background.

In terms of the speakers’ origin, 37% of our respondents link the like-guise to the US, while 28% relate the non-like guise to the UK. This is in contrast to how native speakers perceive be like. The Americans believe be like to have originated in American English, and the British clearly assign the origin of the innovative variant to British English (Buchstaller 2014: 222, 225). However, our learner data points to the unambiguous associations of be like with the US. This finding is suggestive and we believe it merits further discussion.

Let us now tap into our learners’ overt attitudes toward the vernacular variant. In the second part of the survey, the speakers were presented with two short excerpts highlighting the two uses of like – like as a DP and like as a quotative marker (see also Figure 2 in section 3.1.). Remarkably, out of 196 informants, 144 claimed that they could differentiate between the two uses of like, thereby demonstrating a high level of awareness of the existence of these vernacular features. Furthermore, they were able to assign both uses to the speech of younger female speakers with less education, as outlined in Table 6. However, several respondents remained unsure of either speakers’ sex or their education profile as revealed through the category ‘don’t know’.

Table 6: Associations of like as a discourse particle and be like with age, sex, and education (responses = 288)10

Social category

Use 1 (like as a DP)

N (%)

Use 2 (be like)

N (%) χ²

test

Age younger 106 (37%) 118 (41%) χ²(2) = 7.754,

p < 0.05 older 21 (7%) 7 (2%)

don’t know 17 (6%) 19 (7%)

Sex male 23 (8%) 8 (3%) χ²(2) = 8.224,

p < 0.05 female 60 (21%) 70 (24%)

don’t know 61 (21%) 66 (23%)

Education educated 35(12%) 25(9%) χ²(2) = 6.053,

10 The statistical analyses employed here are the chi-square tests of independence. The associations (social class, ethnicity, and form of English) which are not statistically significant are not reported here.

16

little education

62(22%) 52 (18%) p < 0.05

don’t know 47 (16%) 67 (23%)

Those students who could not differentiate between the two uses of like still demonstrate association patterns that are very much in line with those reported in Table 6. Similarly to the metalinguistically more informed cohort, our less aware respondents were still able to link the like user to the younger, female and less educated speech, as presented in Table 7. Furthermore, they associate the use of like with working class speech and US English, while being unsure of the ethnicity of a probable like-user.

Table 7: Associations of general expressions with like with age, sex, education, social class, ethnicity, and origin (responses = 52)11

Social category Like generally

N (%) χ²

test

Age younger 49 (94%)

χ²(2) = 86.808, p < 0.000 older 1 (2%)

don’t know 2 (4%)

Sex male 2 (4%)

χ²(2) = 20.808, p < 0.000 female 27 (52%)

don’t know 23 (44%)

Education educated 5 (9%)

χ²(2) = 19.654, p < 0.000 little education 31 (60%)

don’t know 16 (31%)

Social class middle class 12 (23%)

χ²(2) = 14.000, p < 0.01 working class 30 (58%)

don’t know 10 (19%)

Ethnicity white 14 (27%)

χ²(2) = 20.462, p < 0.000 ethnic minority 6 (11%)

don’t know 32 (62%)

Form of English US English 38 (73%)

χ²(2) = 38.000, p < 0.000 English spoken elsewhere

4 (8%)

don’t know 10 (19%)

Remarkably, these social perceptual patterns triggering the idea of (be) like in the learners’ minds are consistent with how native speakers reconstruct the social reality of this vernacular feature. In Buchstaller’s (2014: 228, 230) study, both US and UK respondents associate the use of be like with younger female speakers with only little education and stemming from the lower strata of society. Moreover, Daily-O’Cain (2008: 69) reports a link between DP like and younger women’s speech in her US data. In summary, except for origin, our learners seem to be very much aligned with the wider 11 This table reports the results of the chi-square goodness-of-fit tests.

17

English-speaking society regarding their perceptions of the social reality of (be) like. We address this issue during the discussion of our findings.

Further evidence can be brought forth to support the contention that the students targeted in the study have quite adeptly picked up the native-speaker patterns underlying perceptions of vernacular uses of like. In one of the survey tasks, students were given a list of occupations and then instructed to assess on a scale of 1 to 10 how likely it was that a person exercising a given profession would use like in their speech. Figure 5 presents the results of this task.

Figure 5: Mean rates for an association between like and different professions

Figure 5 shows that the use of like is linked consistently to the entertainment industry: it is connected to people working as comedians, DJs, record label assistants and film makers, with waiters being also fairly high on the list. It is less associated with professional careers in the educational, financial and marketing sectors and, by this token, with tax lawyers, managers, teachers, and such. This is exactly how native speakers predict the use of like across different professions (see Buchstaller 2014: 263), filmmaker being the sole exception to this otherwise pervasive pattern. Overall, the evidence presented so far indicates that our learners manage to reconstruct the perceptual link between like and various social categories in a native-like fashion.

Finally, let us consider self-reported uses of like. Respondents were asked the question, ‘Do you use like yourself?’ While evaluating the results of this task, we drew a distinction between speakers who saw a difference between Use 1 and Use 2 of like and those who didn’t. The latter group is labelled ‘like generally’ Table 8 presents the results for both cohorts.

18

Table 8: Self-reported uses of like (N responses: 144 for Use 1 and Use 2 and 52 for like generally)12

often sometimes never don’t know χ²test

Use 1 (DP like) 11 (7%) 63 (44%) 66 (46%) 4 (3%) χ²(3) = 91.056, p < 0.000

Use 2 (be like) 35 (25%) 87 (60%) 20 (14%) 2 (1%) χ²(3) = 111.50, p < 0.000

Like generally13 3 (6%) 38 (73%) 9 (17%) 2 (4%) χ²(3) = 66.308, p < 0.000

First and foremost, a large majority of our students admit to using like, irrespective of their ability to differentiate between the two vernacular uses. This finding goes in tandem with another observation. When asked what they think of like in general, 76% (N 149/196) of our respondents revealed either positive or neutral assessments of this vernacular feature. This is consistent with how younger speakers from the US and the UK evaluate this colloquial form: 69.6% of young Americans and 70.8% of young British profess either positive or neutral attitudes toward vernacular like (Buchstaller 2014: 208). This could be an indication that our users welcomed like into the linguistic repertoires as a ‘youthful’ feature, similar to their L1 English peers.

At the same time, a conspicuous cohort does not seem to be willing to embrace the discourse use of like stating that they never use this variant. This might be due to the highly stigmatized associations with “meaningless” speech fillers that this usage still evokes among native speakers themselves (see also D’Arcy 2007: 388). That like is oftentimes dismissed as deeply vernacular is supported by further evidence from our learner data: 85% (N 167/196) of our informants link the use of like to jokes, gossip and informal talk more generally. It is interesting that our learners seem to be picking up on the ideological trend viewing like as “sloppy, lazy, ignorant, or vulgar” speech (D’Arcy 2007: 387).

Note also the elevated rates of self-professed use of quotative be like: 85% of the metalinguistically aware peers are unanimous in their contention that they recruit be like to report speech and thought throughout narration either ‘often’ or ‘sometimes’. This could be an indication that our informants are embracing this innovative variant in spite of some negative associations, actively participating in the spread of be like around the globe.

5. Discussion of the findings and conclusions

Our investigation into learners’ perceptions of quotative be like has yielded the following main results:

(i) Largely coherent, native-like implicit judgements of quotative be like for a variety of personality traits;

(ii) Largely coherent, native-like implicit and explicit judgements of quotative be like for various social characteristics linked to the variant;

(iii) Elevated rates of self-reported use of quotative be like;

12 This table reports the results of the chi-squared goodness-of-fit tests. 13 These responses were culled from students who could not differentiate between the two uses of like.

19

(iv) Heightened awareness and consistent conscious evaluations of the two uses of like (like as a DP and like as a quotative marker) across different social dimensions;

(v) Negative evaluations of DP like by some learners, reflective of the ideology in the native-speaker society viewing like as “meaningless” speech (D’Arcy 2007: 387);

(vi) Very similar to the native-speaker peer groups on both sides of the Atlantic, an overwhelming majority of our respondents have embraced the vernacular variant, admitting to using like either frequently or at least sometimes and also manifesting either positive or neutral attitudes toward this feature of colloquial language.

How can we account for the fact that our learners are exhibiting such good knowledge, both implicit and explicit, of the social values attached to vernacular (be) like, showing considerable alignment with native-speaker communities’ norms at large?

We hope to have been able to bring forth sufficient evidence to highlight the fact that the German student community examined here is, by and large, geographically mobile. This is in line with the most recent practices exercised in the socioeconomically advanced countries of Western Europe. It is not unusual for a German high-school graduate to spend extended periods (in some cases, up to 12 months) abroad. This can happen through a variety of channels: a gap au-pair year, DAAD-funded study-abroad programmes, Erasmus or Fulbright scholarships (cf. Davydova and Buchstaller 2015). Opportunities are numerous. Given the prominent role of English on the international arena and learners’ exornomative orientation toward ENL (English as a Native Language) norms, it is not surprising that English-speaking countries, the UK and the US in particular, are highly attractive destinations. Interestingly, our results show that it is speakers with the highest levels of exposure to UK and US English who are also most adept at approximating the target community norms of social judgements. In contrast, low-exposure learners are also less confident in their judgements of quotative be like. This piece of evidence lends weight to the argument that, similar to other aspects of sociolinguistic competence, sociolinguistic awareness, i.e. speakers’ ability to consistently map certain ideological and social meanings onto specific language forms, is acquired through naturalistic exposure to the target language. Overall then, our findings provide support for the widely debated sociolinguistic hypothesis that a language form and its social meaning do not get transferred from one speaker community to the next without sustained face-to-face interaction (Labov 2001; Meyerhoff and Niedzielski 2003; Buchstaller and D’Arcy 2009; Trudgill 2014; Davydova and Buchstaller 2015). 14

Our study also provides evidence for associations between learners’ native-like judgements of quotative be like and their self-reported proficiency in English. How is it that reportedly more proficient students are also more native-like judges of be like? In order to address this question, we, first, need to clarify the meaning of ‘proficiency’. In this study, we regard ‘proficiency’ as a holistic concept in the sense of general linguistic “fluency” and “communicative competence” (Preston 1989: 118–119). When asked, ‘How well do you feel you know English? / What is your level of proficiency in English?’, learners are not likely to begin to assess the size of their target language vocabulary, nor are they very likely to start recalling their TOEFL test scores. They are probably much more likely to give a global/intuitive assessment of their knowledge of language, reflective of their ability to effectively handle interactions in the target language and communicate their message. Such fluency, we argue, is often acquired through sustained language practices within a speech community. In other words, it is likely that the two variables, i.e.

14 Whether and to what extent the media influences people’s language and the way they perceive it is a contentious issue. Our contribution cannot do justice to the discussions launched in current sociolinguistic debates (see Bell and Sharma 2014; Androutsopolous 2014). This research question needs to be explored in a separate study.

20

speakers’ (perceived) fluency in the target language as well as the amount of naturalistic exposure, interact in subtle ways and in all probability work together to ensure more successful acquisition of social judgments on variation. That said, the actual impact of the interplay between the two variables on the acquisition of social meanings will need to be explored in the future.

Our findings provide evidence substantiating H2 outlined at the outset of the paper, which is, in turn, mediated by H3 and H4. The interesting question, however, is whether German learners have created any new social meanings in the process of acquisition of the sociolinguistic reality of be like (H5) and whether any of these new meanings might be (fully or partially) related to L1 influence, i.e. German (H6). Our results reveal that German learners link be like to American speech and the US more generally, in contrast to native speakers on both sides of the Atlantic, who regard be like as part of their own idiom. How is it that our learners have developed such coherent associations regarding the geographical location of be like? Which factors mediated the emergence of these consistent beliefs about the vernacular variant?

Future research into the social knowledge and associations of bilingual speakers regarding both their languages is required in order to obtain complete answers to these questions. One potential avenue for investigation is what we call interlanguage ideological extension. Socio-ideological knowledge of the L1 may be used to scaffold socio-ideological knowledge in the L2. For instance, once learners have learned that (be) like is a feature of vernacular, casual speech, learners might create a new link to ‘American’ via ideological extension, based on L1 knowledge. In Germany, a casual, informal demeanour is associated with Americans, not with speakers from the UK. This deeply entrenched belief may, thus, be used to build up new indexical relations.

Alternatively, we simply may be observing learner reacting to the input they hear. Learners may be reacting to the global spread of American English and its invariable and ever increasing presence in the mass (social) media. Although be like is attested in all native-speaker varieties, it exhibits the highest rates in American English, thereby providing learners with ample opportunities to pick up on the variant and tailor it to their own communicative needs and perceptions. Further research would need to ascertain the exact role played by face-to-face interactions and the media in the appropriation of sociolinguistic meanings by non-native speakers. Given current results, we suggest that learners are much more likely to replicate closely, as opposed to become more or less aware of, the social meanings via sustained face-to-face communications rather than through other channels of diffusion, since previous research into the acquisition and adaptation of variable linguistic features by language learners has amassed a body of evidence convincingly suggesting that it is indeed the case (see, for instance, Marriott 1995; Barron 2003; Meyerhoff and Niedzielski 2003; Regan 2005; Howard 2010; Davydova and Buchstaller 2015). Our contention is furthermore strengthened by the well-received sociolinguistic view that face-to-face contact is fundamental to the spread of innovative linguistic features, their patterns of use and ensuing language change (Trudgill 2014: 215; Labov 2001: 19–20). All of these studies highlight, or at least imply, that the interpersonal contact plays a decisive role during the appropriation of sociolinguistic competence including interpretations of meanings attached to the variants.

Though not controlled for in this study, the exact role played by the media (and its various types) in the acquisition of social meanings by language learners presents an exciting avenue for future research. In Germany, English-speaking films aired on television are usually dubbed in German meaning that German learners do not have nearly as many opportunities to come into intimate contact with be like as their peers in let’s say the Netherlands or in Scandinavian countries, where films are not dubbed. Designing a study that explores these two different sociolinguistic constellations would likely provide unique insights into media influence on the acquisition of sociolinguistic meanings.

21

The other reason why our German learners’ perceptions of the social meanings of (be) like are so much aligned with those attested for the L1 group may be related to their learners’ mind set, also known as exonormative orientation (Kachru 1992). Theoretically motivated (Kachru 1985; Schneider 2007) and also supported by the authors’ anthropological observations of the community they study, this concept implies that foreign-language learners are target-oriented, doing their very best (oftentimes on a level well below conscious awareness) to approximate native-speaker norms. The findings reported here reveal that German EFL learners succeed in replicating the evaluations of the innovative form (be) like in the target variety. The fundamental intention aiming at complying with native-speaker patterns, including conventions of the vernacular language, is well rewarded and mediated by the high level of learners’ communicative competence.

A further issue is the influence of comparable linguistic features in L1 and L2. The German language exhibits a construction illustrated in (8), which is largely compatible with quotative be like.

(8) …und ich so, ‘Haste es gemacht?’

and I like, ‘Have you this done?’

What (social) meanings are attached to this feature of German and in how far are these meanings compatible with those reported for English be like? Are there any specific hitherto uncovered meanings attached to ich so that are also transferred onto learners’ associations with the English structure? These questions, we believe, will help us disentangle the possible sources of meanings attached to the constructions featuring like and thus provide a fertile ground for future research, calling for further experimental work on interlanguage attitudes.

References

Androutsopoulos, Jannis (ed.) 2014. Mediatization and sociolinguistic change. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Barron, Anne. 2003. Acquisition of interlanguage pragmatics: Learning how to do things with words. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Bayley, Robert, & Vera Regan. 2004. Introduction: The acquisition of sociolinguistic competence. Journal of Sociolinguistics 8(3). 323–338.

Bell, Alan and Devyani Sharma. 2014. Debate. Media and language change. Journal of Sociolinguistics (special issue) 18(2). 213.

Buchstaller, Isabelle. 2014. Quotatives. New trends and sociolinguistic implications. Malden [etc.]: Wiley Blackwell.

Buchstaller, Isabelle. 2006. Social stereotypes, personality traits and regional perception displaced: Attitudes towards the ‘new’ quotatives in the UK. Journal of Sociolinguistics 10. 362–381.

Buchstaller, Isabelle, & Alexander D’Arcy. 2009. Localized globalization: A multi-local, multivariate investigation of quotative be like. Journal of Sociolinguistics 13(3). 291–331.

22

Carroll, John B. 1981. Twenty-five years of research in foreign language aptitude. In Karl C. Diller (ed.) Individual differences and universals in language learning aptitude, 81–118. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Clark, Lynn & Erik Schleef. 2010. The acquisition of sociolinguistic evaluation among Polish-born adolescents learning English: evidence from perception. Language Awareness 19(4). 299–322.

Coolican, Hugh (2004) Research methods and statistics in psychology. Hodder & Stoughton Educational.

Cooper, Robert L. 1975. Introduction to language attitudes II. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 6. 5–9.

Dailey-O’Cain, Jennifer. 2000. The sociolinguistic distribution and attitudes towards focuser like and quotative like. Journal of Sociolinguistics 4. 60–80.

D’Arcy, Alexandra. 2013. Variation and change. In Robert Bayley, Richard Cameron, & Cecil Lucas (eds.), The Oxford handbook of sociolinguistics, 484–502. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

D’Arcy, Alexandra. 2007. Like and language ideology: Disentangling fact from fiction. American Speech 82(4). 386–419.

Davydova, Julia. 2016a. The present perfect in New Englishes: Common patterns in situations of language contact. In Valentin Werner, Elena Seoane & Cristina Suárez-Gómez (eds.) Re-assessing the Present Perfect in English: Corpus studies and beyond [Topics in English Linguistics.] Berlin & Boston: Mouton de Gruyter.

Davydova, Julia. 2016b. Indian English quotatives in a diachronic perspective. In Elena Seoane & Cristina Suárez-Gómez (eds.) World Englishes: New theoretical and methodological considerations. [Varieties of English around the World.] Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Davydova, Julia. 2015. Linguistic change in a multilingual setting: A case study of quotatives in Indian English. In Peter Collins, ed. Grammatical change in English world-wide, 297–334. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins.

Davydova, Julia & Isabelle Buchstaller. 2015. Expanding the circle to Learner English: Investigating quotative marking in a German student community. American Speech 90(4). 441–478. DOI:10.1215/00031283-3442128

Dodsworth, Robin. 2014. Speech communities, social networks, and communities of practice. In Janet Holmes & Kirk Hazen (eds.) Research methods in sociolinguistics. A practical guide, 262–276. Malden [etc.]: Wiley Blackwell.

Howard, Martin. 2010. S’approprier les normes sociolinguistiques en langue étrangère – quel rôle pour l’enseignement? In Olivier Bertrand & Isabelle Schaffner (eds.) Quel fransçais enseigner? La question de la norme dans l’enseignement / l’apprentissage, 283–296. Paris: Editions de l’Ecole Polytechnique.

Howard, Martin, Raymond Mougeon, & Jean-Marc Dewaele. 2013. Sociolinguistic and second-language acquisition. In Robert Bailey, Richard Cameron, & Ceil Lucas (eds.) The Oxford handbook of sociolinguistics, 340–359. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Hymes, Dell. 1971. Competence and performance in linguistic theory. In Renira Huxley & Elisabeth Ingram (eds.) Language acquisition: Models and methods, 67–99. London: Academic Press.

Kachru, Braj. B. 1992. The other tongue: English across cultures. Illinois: University of Illinois Press.

23

Kachru, Braj B. 1985. Standards, codification and sociolinguistic realism: the English language in the outer circle. In Randolph Quirk, & Henry G. Widdowson, eds. English in the world. Teaching and learning the language and literatures, 11–30. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Labov, William. 1969. Contraction, deletion, and inherent variability of the English copula. Language 45(4). 715–762.

Labov, William. 1972. Sociolinguistic patterns. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Labov, William. 2001. Principles of linguistic change, Vol.II Social Factors. Oxford: Wiley- Blackwell

Labov, William. 2013. Preface: The acquisition of sociolinguistic variation. Linguistics 51(2). 247–250.

Labov, William, Sharon Ash, Maya Ravindranath, Tracey Weldon, Maciej Baranowski, & Naomi Nagy. 2011. Properties of the sociolinguistic monitor. Journal of Sociolinguistics 15(4). 431–463.

Laerd Statistics. 2013. The ultimate IBM® SPSS® guides, https://statistics.laerd.com/, accessed September 10, 2015.

Lambert, W., Hodgson, R., Gardner, R. and Fillenbaum, S. 1960. Evaluational reactions to spoken languages. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 60 (1). 44–51.

Levey, Stephen. 2003. He’s like ‘Do it now!’ and I’m like, ‘No!’ English Today 0(01). 24–32.

Limesurvey, https://www.limeservice.com/de/, accessed 25 September 2015.

Marriott, Helen. 1995. The acquisition of politeness patterns by exchange students in Japan. In Barbara F. Freed (ed.) Second language acquisition in a study abroad context, 198–224. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Meyerhoff, Miriam, & Erik Schleef. 2013. Hitting an Edinburgh target: Immigrant adolescents’ acquisition of variation in Edinburgh English. In Robert Lawson. (ed.) Sociolinguistic perspectives on Scotland, 103–128. Basingstoke: Palgrave.

Meyerhoff, Miriam, & Erik Schleef. 2012. Variation, contact and social indexicality in the acquisition of (ing) by teenage migrants. Journal of Sociolinguistics 16(3). 398–416.

Meyerhoff, Miriam, & Nancy Niedzielski. 2003. The globalisation of vernacular variation. Journal of Sociolinguistics 7. 534–555.

Nardy, Aurélie, Jean-Pierre Chevrot, & Stéphanie Barbu. 2013. The acquisition of sociolinguistic variation: Looking back and thinking ahead. Linguistics 51(2). 255–284.

Piske, Thorsten, Ian R.A. MacKay, & James E. Flege. 2001. Factors affecting degree of foreign accent in an L2: a review. Journal of Phonetics 29. 191–215.

Preston, Denis R. 1989. Sociolinguistics and second language acquisition. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Regan, Vera. 2004. The relationship between the group and the individual and the acquisition of native speaker variation patterns: A preliminary study. International Review of Applied Linguistics 42(4). 335–348.

Regan, Vera. 2005. From speech community back to classroom: What variation analysis can tell us about the role of context in the acquisition of French as a foreign language. In Jean-Marc Dewaele (ed.) Focus on French as a foreign language: Multidisciplinary perspectives, 191–209. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

24

Rindal, Ulrikke. 2010. Constructing identity with L2: Pronunciation and attitudes among Norwegian learners of English. Journal of Sociolinguistics 14(2). 240–261.

Romaine, Suzanne & Deborah Lange. 1991. The use of like as a marker of reported speech and thought: A case of grammaticalisation in progress. American Speech 66: 227–279.

Sankoff, Gillian, Pierrette Thibault, Naomi Nagy, Hélène Blondeau, Marie-Odile Fonollosa, & Lucie Gagnon. 1997. Variation in the use of discourse markers in a language contact situation. Language Variation and Change 9. 191–217.

Schleef, Erik, Miriam Meyerhoff, & Lynn Clark. 2011. Teenagers‘ acquisition of variation. A comparison of locally-born and migrant teens’ realisation of English (ing) in Edinburgh and London. English World-Wide 32(2). 206–236.

Schneider, Edgar W. 2007. Postcolonial English. Varieties around the world. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Tagliamonte, Sali A. 2012. Variationist sociolinguistics. Change, observation, interpretation. Malden [etc.]: Wiley Blackwell.

Trudgill, Peter. 2014. Diffusion, drift and the irrelevance of media influence. Journal of Sociolinguistics 18(2). 214–222.

Zahn, Christopher J., & Hopper, Robert. 1985. Measuring language attitudes: The speech evaluation instrument. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 4(2). 113–123.