Building Banter: Fostering L2 sociolinguistic competence through translation — The Association Specialists
  1. Schedule
  2. SESSION 6: Language, media, and technology; Translation
  3. Building Banter: Fostering L2 sociolinguistic competence through translation

Building Banter: Fostering L2 sociolinguistic competence through translation (20423)

Hannah Leonard 1
  1. Dublin City University, Dublin, CO. DUBLIN, Ireland

This exploratory theoretical framework focuses on the marginal presence of informal language in the L2 curriculum and advocates for its inclusion via translation-related tasks to develop student agency and sociolinguistic competence, while exploring the development of L2 learners’ identity. Classroom-based learners often overuse formal registers, tending towards monostylistic communication, which may hinder them in interactions with native speakers in more casual contexts (Mougeon, Nadasdi and Rehner, 2010). This may also affect their agency and self-confidence if they feel the language they use is inappropriate in context. The ability to alternate between various styles, registers and discourse markers also relates to identity, as it can demonstrate in-group membership (Regan, 1996, 2010). Lasan and Rehner’s (2018) preliminary study also indicates a positive association between an understanding of sociolinguistic variation and the ability to express and perceive identity in the L2. Furthermore, the regular omission of informal variants from the classroom contrasts with their widespread vernacular use (Mattiello, 2005). 

With regard to developing sociolinguistic competence, one of the key strengths of translation is that it is process-oriented rather than product-oriented. The act of translating shifts the focus onto the underlying decisions behind the selection of certain pragmalinguistic or sociolinguistic variants over others, and the resulting impact on the style and message of the text. When tasked with establishing equivalence, the learners are required to interact with the indexical nature of language itself and thus fulfil “the socioculturally mediated act of recognizing, interpreting, and using the social and symbolic meaning-making possibilities of language” that constitutes sociolinguistic agency (van Compernolle and Williams, 2012, p. 237). 

This investigation therefore lies at the intersection of learner agency and the use of informal language in the L2, the role of translation in L2 teaching, and the relationship between sociolinguistic competence and identity in the L2. 

  1. van Compernolle, R.A. and Williams, L. (2012) ‘Reconceptualizing Sociolinguistic Competence as Mediated Action: Identity, Meaning-Making, Agency’, The Modern Language Journal, 96(2), pp. 234–250. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2012.01334.x.
  2. Lasan, I. and Rehner, K. (2018) ‘Expressing and perceiving identity and intentions in a second language: a preliminary exploratory study of the effect of (extra)curricular contact on sociolinguistic development’, International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 21(6), pp. 632–646. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2016.1197880.
  3. Mattiello, E. (2005) ‘The pervasiveness of slang in standard and non-standard English’, Mots, Palabras, Words, 6, pp. 7–41.
  4. Mougeon, R., Nadasdi, T. and Rehner, K. (2010) The Sociolinguistic Competence of Immersion Students. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
  5. Regan, V. (1996) ‘Variation in French Interlanguage: A Longitudinal Study of Sociolinguistic Competence’, in R. Bayley and D. Preston (eds) Second Language Acquisition and Linguistic Variation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  6. Regan, V. (2010) ‘Sociolinguistic Competence, Variation Patterns and Identity Construction in L2 and Multilingual Speakers’, Eurosla Yearbook, 10(1), pp. 21–37.