The complex nature of Register in L2 Listening

Listening might seem like a natural thing to do, for most of us. We listen for a multitude of things, and do so naturally and subliminally. That is, we don't (always) consciously concentrate on listening. Sounds are around us all the time... sometimes recognisable, sometimes not. But we still hear them and try to place our interpretation on them. Remember the old adage, "If a tree falls in a forest when no one is around, does it still make a sound?". The answer here of course is Yes. There is even a theory that sound from hundreds of years ago is still travelling in our air waves, just so quietly that it is inaudible to the human ear.

So what is Register, and why is it important to listening? Register in language learning deals with the level of complexity and formality at which conversation occurs. "What's up mate?" may be considered very informal, whereas "May I inquire as to your well being?" may being considered of a high level of formality.

When teaching L2, particularly in countries such as Canada, Register is impacted by social constructs. By this I mean, the nature of the diverse society and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms cause challenges to Register in the Canadian classroom. I have personally experienced, as I'm sure you have, moments in my instruction where I have wanted to say something and done a mind check, changing the words I have chosen or the context of what I was about to say. In L2 instruction, the impact of these mind checks can be to change the register of what was about to be taught.

An example of this might be, "How do East Indians do this?" becomes "How to people in East India do this?". The change seems minor, and the implication may be negligible, but the Register has changed, therefore changing the learning, if ever so slightly, in the learners mind. The first question may appear to be discriminatory, as it targets an ethnic group. The second question, which primarily asks for the same information, asks at a non-targeted, population level, and is perceived as a less discriminatory level of inquiry. By changing the subject of the question, we have changed its political and ethnic impact. But, if our goal is to teach the subject of a sentence, we have now altered that target learning.

So, does learning L2 in a politically sensitive country alter the depth to which the learning can occur? Or, does this factor innately incorporate political targets to language learning?

Linguistic Darwinism - IYKWIM

With the advent of texting and SMS (Short Message Service) in 1992, a new breed of linguistics was born. Based on abbreviations of common expressions (IYKWIM = if you know what I mean), communication using technology became simplified and the sender of the message didn't need to type the full sentence, expression or statement in order to be understood.

Coded language for communication using technology has been around for decades - Morse Code in 1835, Signalese in 1914, ICAO phonetic alphabet in 1932, Police 10-code in the 1940s,  and so on.

During the evolution of these early forms of 'shortspeak', only the chosen few - those who needed to know - were able to understand what was being said. The codification of messages served multiple purposes - for example, it shortened transmission time, reduced resources, encrypted messages, and so on. The code was only available to and used by those who needed it in their everyday communications. Today's SMS or texting code, however, has changed the way we use language when we communicate using today's devices. The availability of communication tools such as cell phones, chat rooms, instant messaging, and email has increased the volume of messages being transmitted by the average person, the desire for faster communication methods, and a standardization of language coding. It has also increased our tolerance for errors in written communication, while helping to reduce the errors created between intended and received message. (OMC instead of OMG makes no sense, and is an obvious error in this code.)

In most countries, using LOL or OMG is recognised by anyone who has access to communication devices. Some countries have developed their own versions of common expressions (here are some German examples). Regardless of your opinion of the contributions this style of communication has for language use, it has been developed by today's technology users and, as such, is the realia of the generation. The language is now so extensively used that business has developed its own version of the language (click here to view).

Teaching this language style in a classroom is difficult, as it is founded upon a deeper understanding of the language it is abbreviating. It requires the user being able to model expressions into abbreviated versions using the rules of the shorthand style. The teacher needs to understand explicitly how these rules are applied - as complex as they may be. However, today's language learners must have an understanding of this language in order to survive the development and implementation of technology in their world, just as previous generations have accepted changes in their 'language for the everyday' ('rad' for something exciting, 'phat' for something awesome, and 'sick' for something that is extremely good, for example).

These are generational evolutionary changes to a language that is being adapted to new uses on a daily basis. The rules that once applied to language learning are changing, both through the introduction of technology, and in the use of technology. Language instruction needs to move with the times, rather than mourn the times lost. Teaching approaches and strategies have to be modified to include this new language strategy.

For an extensive list of text message short hand, click here.