Variability in Learner Language

Variability in Learner Language

There are three approaches to resolve the apparent contradiction between variation and systematicity in learner language.

  The first approach is that practiced in linguists in the Chomskyan tradition has called ‘a homogenous competence model’. In this approach variation is seen as a feature of performance rather than the learner’s underlying knowledge system. Lyons (1972) proposes three ways in which abstract ‘sentence’ can be derived from actual utterances:

1.    Regularization, the elimination of variation related to the speech disfluencies that occur in natural language use.

2.    Standardization, the elimination of the variation found in different dialect of a language.

3.    Decontextualization, the elimination of variation associated with the use of language in different social situation.

The second approach is sociolinguistics one, its goal is to study language in relation to social context. These seek to account for the variation evident in different varieties of English (for example from one dialect to another), the variation which occurs among speakers who differ in terms of general social factors such as class and ethnicity, and also the variation which arises within the speech of a single speaker as a result of changes in situational context.  

The third approach is psycholinguistics. Psycholinguistic processing models seek to account for the variations that result from factors that influence the learners ability to process L2 language under different of use.

Whereas, the linguistic approach ignores variability, the sociolinguistic and the psycholinguistic approaches try to describe and explain it. Sociolinguistic approaches threat socio factors as primary although, as we will see, they may also refer to psycholinguistic mechanism to explain how situational factors result in variability.   

II.          Some theoretical perspectives

A.   Sociolinguistic Models

The Labovian paradigm exerted the greatest influence on the study of variability in SLA research, particularly in much of the earlier work. Two constructs are particular importance : speech styles and variable rules. Labovdistinguishes social factors (responsible for inter-speaker variation) and stylistic factors (responsible for intra-speaker variation). Social factors such as social class, age, and gender can account for differences among speakers.

The dynamic paradigm offer the SLA researcher some powerful theoretical constructs (for example, the notion of environmental weight, of distinctlects, and of code switching ), together with some useful tools for investigating L2 variability (such as implicational scaling and form-function analysis). The dynamic paradigm has influenced a number of SLA researchers. Gatbonton’s (1978) gradual diffusion modelowes much of Baliley’s work. Huebner (1979, 1983) and Tarone in her later work (for example, Tarone 1985) have found form-function analysis revealing.

B.   Social psychological models

Social psychological models seek to relate the language attitudes of speakers to their actual language use. In other words, they attempt to explain variation in language use by reference to the speaker’s views about the social, institutional, and ethnic status to their own in-group, and also that of out-groups with whom they come into contact. A number of social psychological models have been used in SLA research (see Gardner 1985 and Beebe 1988b).

Ochs (1979) distinguishes planned and unplanned discourse.

1.  Planned discourse: discourse that lacks forethought and organizational preparation

e.g., conversation in lectures (mostly in writing)

2.  Unplanned discourse: it has been thought out and organized prior toits expression

e.g., conversation in dinner table (mostly in speaking)

C.     Psycholinguistic models

1.   Planning models

The concept of planning has been widely used in models of language production. As Crookes (1991:115) points out, most models subdivide planning into macro- and micro-planning. The former ‘concerns the long range semantic and syntactic organization of a sizeable chunk of speech’, whereas the latter ‘is concerned with purely local functions, like marking clause boundaries and selecting words’ (Butterworth 1980b: 159, cited in Crookes 1991).

2.   Monitoring

Speakers may monitor their output (i.e pay conscious attention to specific elements of the utterance in order to correct or improve them). Morrison and Low (1983) make use of a similar production model to that of Levelt to distinguish post-articulatory monitoring, which operates on overt speech, and prearticulatory monitoring, which occurs prior to the implementation of the phonetic plan.

Levelt (1983), cited in Crookes (1991:116), similarly distinguishes a ‘production theory of monitoring’, according to which learners respond to ‘alarm signals’ during the course of implementing a plan and make appropriate adjustments, and a’ perceptual theory of monitoring’, according to which users compare the final result of the production process with their original intention. Macro- and micro-monitoring can also be distinguished.

Here is the typology of variation in the choice of linguistic form:

 

III.      Free Variation

Gatbonton proposes that free variation occurs during an early stage of development and then disappears as learners develops better oerganized L2 systems. It usually occurs when a feature first appears in a learner’s language. E.g., negative utterance, the usage of simple and progressive verb, the use of pronoun form.

IV.   Systematic Variation

Variability is distinguished into two:

A.   Task induced variation

The learners are asked to perform

B.   Form function relationship

Learners will express what is important to them, sometimes realizing a function linguistically and sometimes leaving it to be inferred with the help of various non linguistic clues. There are some conclusions based on the researches:

Ø  A form-function analysis can identify systematic patterns of variability

Ø  Learners construct form-function systems in the process of learning and using L2

Ø  The learners’ form-function system evolve over time

Ø  Learners will seek to use their linguistic reseources to perform those functions

C.   Context induced variation

Learners make useof their L2 reseources in accordance with context: linguistic, sociolinguistic, and psycholinguistic.

1.   The effect of linguistic context

Ø  Linguistic context affects the choice ofsyntactical features

Ø  Linguistic context plays a major role in determining the process by which phonological, morphological, and syntactic features are acquired.

2.   The effect of sociolinguistic context: the addressee

Ø  Learners seem to be aware of specific linguistic features that ‘stereotype native speakers of a language

Ø  Learners seem to be aware of their own identity as learner and at times, to exploit it.

Ø  Learners seem to be more sensitive in topic of discourse.

Ø  Learners sometimes do target-like behaviour depending on who their addressee is.

3.   The effect of psycholinguistic context

It influences the learners production, accounting for some of the overall variability.

4.   A multi-factor approach

There are some factors which influence learners production:

Ø  The context of situation

Ø  The subjet’s proficiency in english

Ø  The linguistic context

Redundancy   

Tweet