Interlanguage in Context

Gass & Selinker Chapter 9

Variation
• Variation refers to the use of two
forms to express the same meaning
during a phase of the IL.
– i.e.: My husband not here.
No English.
• Whether we assume they are
constrained by universals or not, ILs
seem to display greater variability
than NLs.
Variation
• Under a UG approach to SLA, variability
is not a part of the learner’s representation
but rather of performance (i.e., putting
language to use at a particular time).
• Others, such as sociolinguists, view L2
knowledge and representation themselves
as variable. Variability is part of what L2
learners know about their language.
Variation
• Sociolinguistics is more concerned
with SL use (as opposed to the
psycholinguistic process of
acquisition) and to the factors that
condition this use.
The basis of sociolinguistics
• The premise that second language
data do not represent a static
phenomenon, even at a single point
in time.
• Many external variables affect
learner production.
• These variables are what we study in
this chapter.
Chapter Outline
• Systematic variation
– Linguistically motivated
– Sociolinguistically motivated
• Social factors
• Interlocutor
• Task
• Topic
• Communication strategies
• Interlanguage Pragmatics
Systematic Variation
• Systematic variation occurs when
variation is conditioned by context rather
than occurring in free variation.
• Context can be linguistic or
sociolinguistic.
– According to Ellis (1987), free variation
occurs as an initial stage when two (+) forms
are involved. The next stage involves
consistency of form/meaning relationships
with overlapping forms and meanings. The
final stage is the correct differentiation for the
form/meaning assignments.
Linguistic causes

of variability
Linguistic contexts
• Dickerson & Dickerson (1975, 1977)
studied the production of English /r/.
• Found that the vowel following the
target sound correlated with its
accurate production.
Linguistic contexts
• Sato (1984) examined the reduction
of consonant clusters in English by 2
Vietnamese children.
• Found that the production of clusters
varied according to its position in the
word (initial or final).
Linguistic contexts
• Young (1991) investigated plural marker
use by Chinese learners of English.
• Found that variation in use and non-use of
{-s} marker was phonologically
conditioned by the segments before and
after the plural.
• Also found that higher proficiency
learners were constrained more by other
morphosyntatic elements of the sentence.
Linguistic contexts
• Hyltenstam (1977) studied
acquisition of Swedish negatives
(varied L1s).
• Found evidence for a series of
intermediate stages in the placement
of negative markers (before and after
verbs) before differentiating between
main and subordinate clauses.
Sociolinguistic causes

of variability
Sociolinguistic contexts
• Schmidt (1977) investigated pronunciation
of English // and // by Cairene Arabic
speakers.
• Found that social class of participants
determined with what frequency they
would produce each sound.
– “Prestige variants” – forms associated with
education or upper classes.
Sociolinguistic contexts
• Beebe (1980) investigated use of /r/
by Thai learners of English.
• Found different performances based
on task
– Word list vs. free conversation
– How do we expect learners to perform
given greater or lesser attention to
what they are saying/reading?
Interlocutor, Task Type &
Conversational Topic
• Speech Accommodation Theory
(Giles et al.)
– Convergence: speakers attempt to make
their speech like others’through speech
rates, pause and utterance lengths,
pronunciation, etc.
– Divergence: speakers accentuate
difference in their speech and their
interlocutors
Speech Accommodation
• Convergence is intended to benefit the
speaker by gaining others’ approval,
identifying speaker as part of a group,
class or ethnic background.
• IL investigations in this area find that L2
learners try to accommodate their speech
to be like that of their interlocutors.
– Beebe & Zuengler (1983) examine Chinese-
Thai children and find that the children
attempt to sound more like their interviewer,
Chinese or Thai.
Sociolinguistic contexts
• Data-elicitation variability
– Labov (1969, 1970) noted that different forms
are likely to occur depending on speech
situation.
– Tarone (1979, 1983) extended Labov to SLA,
arguing that a learner’s IL will change when
the linguistic environment changes.
• Vernacular style = more systematicity, less
variability (less ‘invasion’ from other systems)
Less ‘invasion’
• Superordinate style = less systematicity, more doesn’t mean
variability
that there
• These are determined by attention, which is is greater
determined by the social setting of the speech
event. accuracy!
Sociolinguistic contexts
• Data-elicitation variability
– Dickerson & Dickerson (1977)
– Accuracy differences seen as the result
of the type of task the learner carries
out, according to the attention to speech
in each:
• Free speech – less focus on form
• Dialog reading – moderate focus on form
• Word list reading – most focus on form
Except note that we have no independent evidence of levels of
attention in each of these kinds of tasks!
Sociolinguistic contexts
• Data-elicitation variability
– Further research in this area (i.e., Gass
1980, Sato 1985, Tarone 1985)
indicates that different data elicitation
techniques may indeed yield different
findings.
– Further, the hypothesized relation
between focus on form and accuracy is
not borne out.
Discourse function and context
• Eisenstein & Starbuck (1989) examined ESL oral
data for accuracy measures and found that the
greater the emotional investment, the lower the
accuracy.
• Zuengler (1989) found that conversational
dominance is not determined only by linguistic
proficiency but rather by subject knowledge.
– Woken & Swales (1989) concur with Zuengler.
• Selinker & Douglas (1985) claim that learners
create ‘discourse domains’ that relate to various
parts of their lives. IL forms are created within
particular contexts or domains. Different IL
strategies manifest themselves in different
domains.
More on the role of context
• Kormos (1999): error detection is
dependent on a social context (i.e.,
some contexts require greater
accuracy)
• Tarone & Liu (1995): new forms
emerge in particular contexts and
then ‘spread’ to others
Communication Strategies
Communication strategies
• Although not entirely related to variation,
communication strategies offer an
interesting window into the L2 learner’s
mind.
• They are the adjustments to the ongoing
processes responsible for language
acquisition and use that allow processing
to be maintained.
• What does a learner do when s/he needs to
say something for which s/he does not have
the linguistic knowledge?
Communication strategies
• L2 strategies are defined on the basis of
three conditions:
1. problematicity
2. consciousness
3. intentionality
• Some L2 strategies include:
– Circumlocution
– Approximation
– Literal translation
– Language switch
– Avoidance
Interlanguage Pragmatics
Pragmatics
• Pragmatics involves learning not only the
literal meaning of utterances but also what
social intention lies behind them.
• IL pragmatics deals with the acquisition
and use of pragmatic knowledge in the L2.
• Research focuses on speech acts such as
complaining, thanking, apologizing,
refusing, inviting, etc.
– Speech acts themselves are assumed to be
universal, but the form used in specific acts
varies from culture to culture (and thus from
language to language).
Interlangauge Pragmatics
• Since languages vary in their pragmatic
forces and approaches, the potential for
misunderstanding (or worse) is great.
• Learners are also often unaware of this
aspect of language, as well as of the
negative reactions they may receive as a
result of pragmatic errors.
– Interlocutors assume they understand each
other so often don’t question such
interpretations.
Interlanguage Pragmatics
• Research in this area is limited, but
finds evidence of pragmatic transfer,
just like we see transfer in other
linguistic areas.
– The range of formulas used is similar across
languages, but the order in which these are
used can vary.
– Further, IL pragmatic negotiations can be
much more in depth and extensive than in the
NLs.
Interlanguage Pragmatics
• There is a large range of social variables
that might determine how language is used
in a given context:
– Relationship between the people involved
– Status of people involved
– Ages of people involved
– Sex of people involved
– Other witnesses, and their relationships?
– Etc.
Interlanguage Pragmatics
• Bulge Theory (Wolfson 1988, 1989)
– The two extremes of social distance
(intimates and strangers) show
similarities, and the remainder of
interactions group around the middle
bulge (friends, co-workers,
acquaintances, etc.)
Interlanguage Pragmatics
• We should not consider the development
of pragmatic knowledge without
considering the concomitant development
of grammatical knowledge, and vice
versa.
• Many areas remain to be studied:
– existence of pragmatic universals…
methodology issues… role of the NL… path
of pragmatic development . . . rate and route
of pragmatic development… role of input,
instruction, motivation, attitude, etc.
Discussion
• Variation and context
(p. 251, question #1)
• Taxonomy of Communication
Strategies
(p. 257, question #10)
• Pragmatics
(p. 256, question #9)