Annie Chapter 9
Advisor Dr. Roger
Gass, S. M., & Selinker, L. (2008). Second language acquisition: An
introductory course (3rd ed.). New York: Routledge.
Introduction
 Interlanguage Selinker(1972). Affect the learning and
production of second language
 Focuses on external social and contextual variables
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.
p259
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.
of variability
Linguistic contexts
 Sato (1984) examined the reduction of consonant
clusters in English by 2 Vietnamese children.p263
 Found that the production of consonant clusters
varied according to its position in the word (initial or
final).
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
 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 morpho syntatic
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.
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)
Superordinate style = less systematicity, more
variability
These are determined by attention, which is
determined by the social setting of the speech
event.
Less ‘invasion’
doesn’t mean
that there
is greater
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
 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.
2.
3.

problematicity
consciousness
intentionality
Some L2 strategies include:





Circumlocution
Approximation
Literal translation
Language switch
Avoidance
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, coworkers, 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.