Contents introduction chapter I. Bases of english language and its stylistic layers

CHAPTER II. DIFFERENCES BETWEEN SPEAKING
FORMAL AND INFORMAL LANGUAGE
2.1. Informal language learning.
The Learning Ecosystem of Learners of Macedonian Biljana Belamaric Wilsey North Carolina State University Abstract In a landscape where research on online language learning and learning less commonly (LCTLs) and almost never taught languages (ANTLs) is focused on experiences in formal learning settings, there is a large gap in knowledge about the experiences of learners outside of the classroom, using online self-instructional materials and tutoring.
The present research aims to fill that gap by answering the question how an ecologically-conceptualized context impacts informal learners of one ANTL, Macedonian. The research approach is qualitative, taking as primary data Skype interviews with learners recruited through the online non-profit language learning resource center, Macedonian Language E-Learning Center.
Framing the research within ecological systems theory, the researcher found that within their microsystems, the learners found support but not resources for their study; for resources they had to turn to the Internet. Furthermore, macro-systemic influences negatively impacted their study of Macedonian. Finding themselves challenged by their ecosystem, the learners persisted with their study, demonstrating a high level of self-motivation.
The significance of the research lies not only in the glimpse it offers into the world of informal learners of ANTLs, but also because it suggests and exemplifies a cross-disciplinary theoretical approach for research with other learners of LCTLs which takes into consideration the impact of the learners’ entire ecological system on their learning choices and progress.
Before describing the study and results, it is necessary to define some terminology and briefly explain the theories on which the research is predicated. Ecological Linguistics The ecological approach is one line of research in second language acquisition (SLA) that has gained prominence very recently.
The ecological view includes the notions that language learning is context-situated (which includes nested linguistic ecosystems), relational (dynamic process of negotiation between learner and environment), and functional (occurs through interaction and socialization into communities of practice), Informal Language Learning and Self-Instruction 17 rather than just grammatical. Ecological linguistic analysis focuses on relationships and processes rather than products and outcomes.
As with language learning and technology, most of the publications within the ecological linguistic perspective focus on the classroom and distance education. One counterexample is the recent collection of research papers edited by Benson and Reinders, which addresses informal language learning and self-instruction including some LCTLs. The research presented in this paper continues in the direction outlined by Benson and Reinders.
The current research also draws on developmental psychology, specifically Urie Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory, which is useful for research espousing an ecological worldview because it is activity-based and focused on the connections within and across nested systems.
These nested sub-environments include the microsystem (individual’s direct social interactions), mesosystem (multiple interrelated microsystems; e.g. support that is available for language learners to study and practice the language), exosystem (social systems with which the individual does not interact directly but that influence the individual's language learning) and macrosystem (broader cultural context).
The macrosystem influences the learner’s identity, whether as a member of the native culture (speaking the native language), the target culture (speaking the target language), or somewhere in between, “a third place”, located at the intersection of multiple native and target language learning cultures.
Informal Language Learning and Self-Instruction Several researchers have written about the settings where learning takes place and regardless of differences in classification or terminology, the researchers agree that learning does not only take place in formal settings such as schools, but also through day-to-day activities, on the job, and in the community. The traditional view identifies three separate settings: formal, non-formal, and informal; a classification that has been criticized by other researchers in adult 18 Wilsey learning who have proposed their own definitions.
For the purposes of the present research, formal learning is defined as directed by a representative or representatives (instructor, teaching assistant, etc.) of an educational institution and includes distance education classes. In contrast, informal learning takes place outside of the traditional educational establishment, including on-the-job training, consultant-led training, tutoring, and community workshops. In this definition, informal learning has a broader scope than in other definitions and subsumes what has previously been defined as non-formal learning.
The curriculum in informal learning, thus defined, can be set by the learners themselves (as in the case of self-instruction) or an instructor, tutor, or consultant, but that curriculum is not endorsed by a school or university. While the same materials may be used in both settings, their application is different: in the formal setting, the materials are part of a curriculum that also requires the learner to produce proof of learning, such as through assignments and assessments, for which the learner is provided feedback and (in most cases) rewarded with a grade.
In the informal learning setting, the proof of learning is not required; instead it is up to the learners to evaluate their own learning and seek out further resources (including assessments) if they feel that they need them. Learners can check their knowledge and receive feedback (such as from an instructor, consultant, tutor, or computer program), but that feedback is for the learner’s own benefit and not formalized through a grade. Because informal language learning is devoid of external motivators, such as grades, it is self-directed.
The learners may locate and use self-instructional tools: commercial software or self-access learning centers, or they may join online language learning communities, or they may hire tutors to guide and assist their learning. Self-instructional software is often not available for ANTLs, such as Macedonian, because of companies’ perceived lack of profitability for those markets. But there is one online language learning resource that is available for Macedonian, and it is the informal learning environment provided by the non-profit organization Macedonian Language E-Learning Center (MLEC) which is the recruitment site in the present investigation.
Informal Language Learning and Self-Instruction 19 The Recruitment Site and Participants Macedonian is the administrative language of the Republic of Macedonia, an Eastern European country located north of Greece, south of Serbia, west of Bulgaria, and east of Albania. Macedonian is an ANTL: there are less than ten universities in North America currently offering any instruction, including as independent study (Center for Advanced Research on Language Acquisition, and only one offers Macedonian online, the University of North Carolina - Chapel Hill. In Australia, Macedonian had been offered onsite at Macquarrie University, but the course offerings were eliminated in 2011.
Therefore, studying the case of Macedonian is ideal for assessing how Internet technologies can impact the teaching and learning of a language that is taught less and less commonly in the formal educational setting worldwide.
This approach is in direct correlation with the research question, which explicitly focuses on learners’ perceptions of themselves and their experiences in the learning context.
The research was framed as a case study because the sample researched and the population from which it was drawn was limited both by language (Macedonian) and site (the Macedonian Language E-Learning Center). The data collection consisted of participant interviews using open-ended questions that were provided to the participants ahead of time.
Of the 11 participants in the study, one person only responded to interview questions via email, and the remaining 10 were Informal Language Learning and Self-Instruction 23 interviewed via Skype. Of those 10, one person was not comfortable enough with English to conduct the interview in English so a combination of German, Macedonian, and English was used.
2.2. Methods of Teaching Formal And Informal Language.
Practical ideas for teaching polite language and friendly language.
Although getting formality really right is a sign of a truly advanced learner (and is also the last thing native speaker teenagers pick up), even beginners can gain from being told the formality differences between “Can you…?”/“Could you…?”, “Good morning”/“Hello”/“Hi”, etc. - and even more so nowadays when students with limited English often already have to use it in their work and travels.
Even though people speaking to them will probably understand that it is a lack of knowledge that is making them say “Please give me a coffee” to the secretary, that is unlikely to completely take away the offence. There is also the less commonly considered danger of sounding unfriendly by being too formal, e.g. continuing to address people “Dear Mr.Smith” long after the replies from overseas have switched to “Dear Yuji”.
Patterns in formal and informal language.
As well as teaching formality differences as you go along, e.g. with each functional language/everyday-English point (greetings, meeting people, offers, etc.) that you cover, there are also useful generalizations you can make or ask students to spot. Formal language tends to include longer, Latinate words, often with prefixes and suffixes, e.g. “cooperation” rather than “help” and “inconvenience” rather than “bother”.
These words tend to be in longer sentences too, and making a functional phrase such as a request longer (e.g. adding “possibly” to “Could I…?”) almost always makes it more polite. Formal writing also tends to follow the more prescriptive grammar and punctuation rules that native speaker kids are taught at school, e.g. not starting sentences with “and” and “but”. In emailing, there are also plenty of archaic forms that do not make sense in modern grammar or speech, e.g. “I look forward to…” and “Yours faithfully”.
Informal language tends to have shorter words and sentences. The shorter words are often put together into phrasal verbs and other idiomatic phrases like “hold on”, “let me know” and “give me a ring”. One reason the sentences are shorter is that they often lose particular grammatical words, e.g. subjects and auxiliary verbs as in “Looking forward to seeing you soon”.
All these things are also true of informal writing, and in general informal writing is similar to speech. Other features of informal writing include abbreviations (including text speak ones), and strong language and punctuation (“fabulous”, “no way”, exclamation marks, multiple punctuation, etc). With emails there can perhaps be said to be two kinds of informal ones, the business-like ones that have no greetings and just names as salutations (if that), and ones that have lots of friendly language like “Pass my love onto…” and “Write soon”.
Classroom activities for formal and informal language.
The first thing students need to be able to do is to identify the two kinds of language. One nice game for this is giving each student one card with “Formal” on it and another with “Informal” on it. They listen to phrases the teacher reads out like “Was sup?” and “I hope this email finds you well” and hold up the cards to indicate what they think about the formality they hear. They can then label the same phrases on a worksheet and try to draw up rules for formal and informal language from those examples.
You can also introduce common mistakes when doing this point, this time giving them cards that say “Informal” and “Wrong” to hold up when they hear “Looking forward to hearing from you” and “I look forward to hear from you”.
There are several other ways of taking this kind of TTT (Test Teach Test) approach. One is to give them mixed up formal and informal conversations or emails to sort out.
This can be a formal exchange and an informal one to divide from each other and then put into order, or an email exchange (that gets more and more informal as it goes on) that you ask them to put into chronological order.
The worksheets should be designed so that the students can use meaning and context clues to help them even if they are unsure about the differences in formality. They can then work together to identify the points that make the differences in formality obvious.
A simpler version of the activity above is to just give them phrases or emails and their responses (e.g. “Hiya. How’s it going?” “Great. You?”) that they should match up from formality and meaning clues.
It doesn’t matter which side is showing. They climb the ladder by guessing/remembering the exact wording of the other side of every card, moving all the way from the bottom to the top. Any mistakes mean play passes to the next person, and all players must start at the very bottom each and every time. Cards remain turned over if they guess correctly, meaning the next person must change the formality the other way round.
A more well-known activity is to get students correcting formality mistakes. I find this works best if the formality problems are mixed up with spelling mistakes, paragraphing problems, etc. You can give them a conversation or email exchange with a mix of such problems to sort out, or give them a succession of tasks that just have a single kind of problem that they should identify and then correct. For example, the first email and response you give them has 15 spelling mistakes; then once they have found and corrected all of them you give a similar worksheet with 15 formality problems on it.
Perhaps my favorite activity for presenting or practicing formality is to give students very informal sentences that they should compete to make more and more formal, e.g. going from “Pass me the salt, will you?” to “Could you possibly pass me the salt for just a moment or two, if it’s not too much trouble?” and beyond. When they give up or the last sentence was actually less formal than the previous one, the last person gets a point and they do the same thing with a different sentence.
Style-Shifting: Examining and Using Formal and Informal Language Styles.
As language users, we constantly move between speech communities and adjust our language accordingly. As students advance in their academic careers, they engage in more complex tasks in school, both spoken and written. Consequently, their ability to style-shift becomes more important, as they are often judged on the appropriateness of their language choices.
This lesson plan asks students to compare formal and informal language styles and articulate the specific features common to each style.
Students examine their own language use to note how it varies across contexts. By becoming aware of the changes in their own language use, students can gain greater control over the language styles they adopt in different types of contexts.
Features resources:
- Recognizing Formal and Informal Language Features: Students use this resource to discuss examples of formal and informal language, as well as to begin developing a sense of what language features contribute to such labels.
- Translating between Informal and Formal Styles: With this resource, students apply their understanding of formal and informal language features to shift between them.
From the theory of practice:
As language users, we constantly shift styles according to the contexts in which we find ourselves speaking or writing. Similar to code-switching, style-shifting is often below our level of consciousness as speakers or writers, but can be problematic for us as listeners or readers.
Rather than ask students to leave their personalities and multiple language styles outside the classroom, this lesson plan seeks to draw on students’ multiple language styles to compare and contrast them.
Through such meta-analyses of language, students gain greater control and choice over which styles to use when engaging in academic activities.
National standards for the English language arts:
1. Students read a wide range of print and non-print texts to build an understanding of texts, of themselves, and of the cultures of the United States and the world; to acquire new information; to respond to the needs and demands of society and the workplace; and for personal fulfillment. Among these texts are fiction and nonfiction, classic and contemporary works.
2. Students read a wide range of literature from many periods in many genres to build an understanding of the many dimensions (e.g., philosophical, ethical, aesthetic) of human experience.
3. Students apply a wide range of strategies to comprehend, interpret, evaluate, and appreciate texts. They draw on their prior experience, their interactions with other readers and writers, their knowledge of word meaning and of other texts, their word identification strategies, and their understanding of textual features (e.g., sound–letter correspondence, sentence structure, context, graphics).