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)
• 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
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)