Interlanguage - Variability

Variability

Though the interlanguage perspective views learner language as a language in its own right, this language systematically varies much more than native-speaker language. A learner may produce a target-like variant (e.g. 'I don't') in one context and a non-target like variant (e.g. 'me no') in another. Scholars from different traditions have taken opposing views on the importance of this phenomenon. Those who bring a Chomskyan perspective to SLA typically regard variability as nothing more than "performance errors", and not worthy of systematic inquiry. On the other hand, those who approach it from a sociolinguistic or psycholinguistic orientation view variability as an inherent feature of the learner's interlanguage, where the learner's preference for one linguistic variant over another depends on accompanying a) social (contextual) variables such as the status or role of the interlocutor (see Selinker & Douglas, 1985), or b) linguistic variables such as the phonological environment or neighboring features marked for formality or informality. Naturally, most research on variability has been done by those who presume it to be meaningful (Fasold & Preston, 2007; Tarone, 2009; Tarone & Liu, 1995).

Research on variability in learner language distinguishes between "free variation", which has not been shown to be systematically related to accompanying linguistic or social features, and "systematic variation", which has. Of course, the line between the two is subject to debate.

Free variation in the use of a language feature is usually taken as a sign that it has not been fully acquired. The learner is still trying to figure out what rules govern the use of alternate forms. This type of variability seems to be most common among beginning learners, and may be entirely absent among the more advanced.

Systematic variation is brought about by changes in the linguistic, psychological, social context. Linguistic factors are usually extremely local. For instance, the pronunciation of a difficult phoneme may depend on whether it is to be found at the beginning or end of a syllable.

Social factors may include a change in register or the familiarity of interlocutors. In accordance with Communication Accommodation Theory, learners may adapt their speech to either converge with, or diverge from, their interlocutor's usage. For example, they may deliberately choose to address a non-target form like "me no" to an English teacher in order to assert identity with a non-mainstream ethnic group (Rampton 1995).

The most important psychological factor is usually taken to be attention to form, which is related to planning time. The more time that learners have to plan, the more target-like their production may be. Thus, literate learners may produce much more target-like forms in a writing task for which they have 30 minutes to plan, than in conversation where they must produce language with almost no planning at all. The impact of alphabetic literacy level on an L2 learner's ability to pay attention to form is as yet unclear (see Tarone, Bigelow & Hansen, 2009).

Affective factors also play an important role in systematic variation. For example, learners in a stressful situation (such as a formal exam) may produce fewer target-like forms than they would in a comfortable setting. This clearly interacts with social factors, and attitudes toward the interlocutor and topic also play important roles.

When learners experience significant restructuring in their L2 systems, they sometimes show what has been termed U-shaped behavior. For instance, Lightbown (1983) showed that a group of English language learners moved, over time, from accurate usage of the “-ing” present progressive morpheme, to incorrectly omitting it, and finally, back to correct usage. This is explained by theorizing that learners first acquired the “-ing” form as a chunk, second, lost control of this form as their knowledge system was disrupted by expanding understandings of the tense and aspect systems of English, and third, returned to correct usage upon gaining greater control of these linguistic characteristics and forms. These data provide evidence that learners were initially producing output based on rote memory of individual words containing the present progressive morpheme. However, in the second stage their systems apparently contained the rule that they should use the bare infinitive form to express present action, without a separate rule for the use of “-ing.” Finally, their systems did contain such a rule.