The Variability of Interlanguage Use: Yasmine Kilian, Port Elizabeth Technikon

1
THE VARIABILITY OF INTERLANGUAGE USE

Yasmine Kilian, Port Elizabeth Technikon 1. INTRODUCTION One area of interest in research into second language (L2) acquisition is the nature and properties of the L2 learners developing knowledge of the target L2 grammar. Variability is evident in the interlanguage grammars of all L2 learners, irrespective of their levels of proficiency; their interlanguage use is characterised by the variable occurrence of target L2 forms, and the occurrence of more than one variant of a form where the target L2 has only one. This pattern of linguistic behaviour is called "non-systematic variability". In this article, the phenomenon of this variability in L2 knowledge is investigated. The existing body of knowledge about L2 acquisition provides ample proof that L2 learners are characteristically variable in their interlanguage use. The question arises, however, as to why the learners interlanguage grammars exhibit this variability. In this article, I attempt to answer this question. In brief, it appears that non-systematic variability results from the way in which mental systems involved in the construction of interlanguage grammars interact with different types of linguistic input. The linguistic input to which L2 learners are exposed differs from that to which first language (L1) learners are exposed (Towell and Hawkins 1994:155, 160). In addition to naturally occurring sentences of the target L2, L2 learners typically receive explicit instruction and negative feedback. These different kinds of linguistic input are processed by different mental systems and give rise to different kinds of interlanguage knowledge. According to Towell and Hawkins (1994:182), a learner who receives explicit instruction and negative feedback acquires "learned linguistic knowledge which enables him or her to behave in one context as if the parameter has been reset. The result may produce the kind of behaviour which has been called non-systematic variability". In order to arrive at an understanding of interlanguage variability, I will, firstly, examine the different types of knowledge systems which underlie linguistic behaviour. Secondly, I will 2 look at the kinds of linguistic input which give rise to the different knowledge systems. Finally, I will present an explanation for non-systematic variability based on the findings of four studies on L2 acquisition, namely (Felix and Weigl 1991), (White 1991), (Doughty 1991) and (White, Spada, Lightbown, and Ranta 1991). 2. LINGUISTIC KNOWLEDGE SYSTEMS Two different knowledge systems, namely competence and learned linguistic knowledge (LLK), are believed to underlie an L2 learners linguistic behaviour. Krashen points out the difference between competence and LLK, using the terms "acquired knowledge" and "learned knowledge" to refer to competence and LLK, respectively (cf., for instance, Krashen 1985:1, 1994:45). This distinction between competence and LLK is endorsed by Schwartz (1993:51), who relates competence to Universal Grammar (UG)-based knowledge and LLK to non-UG based knowledge. According to Krashen, acquired knowledge results from the subconscious process of language acquisition and, as a result, the language user is not consciously aware of the rules of the language s/he is using (Gass and Selinker1994:144). On Schwartzs (1993:51, 150) view,
competence is innate (because UG is innate) and forms part of a unique language-specific cognitive system. Krashen considers learned knowledge to be conscious knowledge (Gass and Selinker 1994:144). When a language user has learned knowledge of a language, s/he knows the rules, is aware of them and is able to talk about them (ibid). Unlike competence, LLK is created via the central processing systems (Schwartz 1993:157). However, both competence and LLK affect fluency and accuracy of language production (Towell and Hawkins 1994:174). Competence and LLK are unobservable and have to be inferred from observable behaviour (Schwartz 1993:150). Competence and LLK each underlie a distinct type of L2 linguistic behaviour (ibid). Linguistic behaviour stemming from competence is called "performance", whereas linguistic behaviour which stems from LLK is called "learned linguistic behaviour" (LLB) (ibid). 3 Towell and Hawkins (1994:175) point out that it may be difficult to distinguish performance from LLB. However, researchers should be able to tell the difference if they can determine whether the linguistic behaviour stems from knowledge that was acquired or from knowledge that was learnt. 3. TYPES OF LINGUISTIC INPUT In this section, the kinds of linguistic input that respectively give rise to competence and LLK, the two different knowledge systems underlying L2 linguistic behaviour, will be discussed. The role that each kind of input is claimed to play in L2 acquisition, according to Schwartz and Krashen, will then be discussed. According to Schwartz (1993:148), a learners knowledge system of a particular language can grow only if that learner is exposed to utterances of the language. This kind of linguistic input is called "primary linguistic data" (PLD) by Schwartz (1993:148) and "comprehensible input" by Krashen (1985:2-3). A learner uses PLD to generate hypotheses about the knowledge system underlying the L2 (Schwartz 1993:148). The learners resulting knowledge system is Schwartzs UG-based competence and Krashens acquired knowledge. Other types of linguistic data, i.e. other than PLD, are called "non-primary linguistic data" (non-PLD). Non-PLD can take the form of information about what is not possible in a particular language. Such information is obtained through correction and negative feedback. Another example of non-PLD is explicit instruction, or explicit data, received during formal (explicit) learning of the language (Gass and Selinker 1994:144). Non-PLD give rise to Schwartzs LLK and Krashens learned knowledge. 4. THE EFFECT, IF ANY, OF NON-PLD ON L2 COMPETENCE Can explicit instruction and negative feedback affect interlanguage competence? In this section, I will explain why this question arises. In order to do so, I will, firstly, relate Krashen and Schwartzs views on the effects of different kinds of input to a modular view of the 4 human mind. Secondly, I will explain why, in certain circumstances, L2 learners need explicit instruction and negative feedback to discover that their hypotheses about the L2 are incorrect. 4.1. Krashen's view Krashen (1994:45) views acquired knowledge and learned knowledge as being internalised differently. Furthermore, Krashen states that learned knowledge can never become acquired
knowledge (Gass and Selinker 1994:145). It is evident, therefore, that, on Krashens view, (i) the knowledge system derived from PLD is distinct from that which is derived from non-PLD and (ii) non-PLD cannot affect competence. Krashens views are consistent with a modular view of the human mind. According to Le Roux (1994:25), a modular view of the mind implies that acquired knowledge is part of the language module while learned knowledge is stored in the central systems. The central systems can read information produced by the language module. However, the language module cannot read information, such as learned knowledge, which is stored in the central systems (ibid). 4.2. Schwartz's view Krashens views on modularity are shared by Schwartz. Schwartz (1993:157) claims that only PLD can feed into the language module, based on the fact that L1 grammars are built on PLD only (ibid). According to Schwartz (1993:157-8), negative feedback and explicit instruction serve only to give the L2 learner knowledge about language, not knowledge of language (i.e., not competence). Schwartz (1993:157) argues that knowledge about language is computed and stored in the central systems and cannot be read by the language module. Therefore, nonPLD (that leads to knowledge about language) cannot affect competence (that is stored in the language module). 4.3. The role of non-PLD in L2 acquisition In contrast to Krashens and Schwartzs claims, White (1989) proposes that, in addition to PLD, learners also need non-PLD in order to arrive at the correct hypotheses about the L2 (cf. Le Roux 1994:23). Non-PLD are considered to be necessary when the L2 input to which the 5 learner is exposed is either (i) not target-like or (ii) does not provide evidence of what is not possible in the L2 (ibid). An example of the former is when the bulk of the L2 input is provided by other L2 learners of the same target L2. This is the case when L1 speakers of English learn Afrikaans as L2 from other L2 speakers of Afrikaans whose L1 is English. These L2 learners are exposed to a large quantity of non-target-like L2 input. For example, the learners will receive as input sentences such as *Hy dink dat hy het haar gesien (= He thinks that he has her seen) instead of Hy dink dat hy haar gesien het (=He thinks that he her seen has). As a result, these learners may fail to invert subject and verb after the complementiser dat (=that). In this case, they will need explicit instruction to acquire the correct target L2 form. Negative evidence becomes pertinent in (ii) above. To illustrate this point, consider the example of a L1 speaker of Afrikaans learning English. Afrikaans permits the placement of an adverb between a verb and its direct object, whereas English does not. Therefore, the L1 speaker of Afrikaans needs evidence that sentences such as *He eats quickly his food are not permitted in English. Having established that knowledge of some aspects of the L2 can be arrived at only via nonPLD, and bearing in mind Krashens (and Schwartzs) distinction between acquired and learned knowledge, L2 acquisition researchers have begun to enquire whether such knowledge can indeed affect competence (Le Roux 1994:24). 5. THE LINK BETWEEN APPARENT PARAMETER RESETTING AND NONSYSTEMATIC VARIABILITY In the following section, four studies, viz. (Felix and Weigl 1991), (White 1991), (Doughty
1991) and (White et al. 1991), are discussed. The results of these studies shed some light on the question of whether or not non-PLD can effect L2 acquisition. Their findings point to the fact that the learners behaved in one context "as if the parameter had been reset" and that apparent (as opposed to actual) parameter resetting "may produce the kind of behaviour which has been called nonsystematic variability" (Towell and Hawkins 1994:182). 6 5.1. Parameter resetting Linguistic parameters are a feature of UG. According to Radford (1997:16), UG theory, developed by Noam Chomsky, posits the existence of a universal set of innately endowed principles of grammar which determine the nature of grammatical structure in natural languages. It is accepted that every principle has a limited number of parameters, where "parameter" refers to one of the possibilities left open by the principle, from which specific languages may choose (Waher 1991:4). In the process of L1 acquisition, a child acquires competence by selecting values for the parameters on the basis of PLD that s/he is exposed to (Cook & Newson 1996:79). According to some researchers (cf. Le Roux 1994:24, White 1985), it follows, therefore, that when the same child acquires an L2, s/he will have to reset the parameters to the correct target L2 values. Upon setting the new parameter value, the learner will end up with knowledge of other grammatical properties associated with the value of the parameter "for which no known (direct) PLD exist" (Schwartz 1993:154-5). This is so because parameters are associated with clusters of related grammatical properties, the knowledge of which is triggered once the value of the parameter has been set (Gass and Selinker 1994:128). When a French-speaking child, for instance, sets the verb movement parameter to [+ verb movement] on the basis of exposure to French sentences containing adverbs, the child should end up knowing (in the absence of direct PLD) that verb movement also applies to negatives and questions (White 1991:341). 5.2. The studies The findings of the studies below indicate that non-PLD have an immediate positive effect on the linguistic behaviour of the subjects. 5.2.1. Felix and Weigl (1991) This study focused on the acquisition of English as an L2 by 77 German-speaking high school students. The students were exposed to and learnt English in the classroom predominantly, through instruction from non-native speakers of English. 7 Three groups of students, representing beginning, intermediate and advanced learners, were tested for their ability to correctly judge UG-based grammaticality contrasts in English. These contrasts did not involve structural properties which are learnable on the basis of PLD, did not share similarities with L1 structures and were not explicitly taught in the classroom. The test results were very poor. Out of a total of 60 sentences, only one sixth were judged correctly by approximately 45% of the learners. Not only was no significant difference evident in the results of the three groups, the learners also appeared to have systematically given the wrong answer. A detailed analysis of the learners responses revealed that they employed two main strategies, namely (i) they assumed that what was permitted in the L1 was also permitted in the L2 and (ii) they refused to generalise beyond what had been taught. 5.2.2. White (1991)
This study investigated the effects of positive and negative evidence on L2 acquisition. In particular, White focused on the acquisition of English adverbs by 11 and 12 year old Frenchspeaking learners. These learners were beginners, whose exposure to English was limited to approximately two hours of instruction per week. Francophone learners of English, whose L1 instantiates the subject-verb-adverb-object (SVAO) order, have to learn that this word order is incorrect in English. Furthermore, they have to acquire the SAV order for English, which is incorrect in French. According to White (1991:138), the SAV order can be learnt on the basis of positive evidence. SVAO sentences, however, do not occur in English. Thus, there is no positive evidence that such sentences are ungrammatical. For this reason, it was hypothesised that L2 learners would require negative evidence in order not to produce SVAO sentences in English. Learners were assigned to two experimental groups. One group received instruction on English adverb placement, whereas the other group was given instruction on question formation instead of adverbs. Instruction on question formation aimed at familiarising the subjects with the activities used to test knowledge of adverbs. A comparison group consisted of 10 and 11 year old monolingual L1 speakers of English. The research design involved a 8 written pre-test, a period of instruction, two written post-tests, five weeks apart, and a written follow-up test one year later. The results indicated that only those learners who were instructed on adverb placement came to know that SVAO is not an accepted English word order. This knowledge was not lost in the period between the two post-tests. However, the follow-up test revealed that the instructed learners did not retain their new knowledge. 5.2.3. Doughty (1991) Doughty investigated the effects of instruction on the acquisition of relativisation in the L2. The subjects were 20 international students at the intermediate level of English L2 proficiency. All the subjects arrived in the US with a background of instruction in English as a foreign language and had little knowledge of English relative clauses. However, they were considered ready to acquire relativisation on the basis of their performance on a level identification test. The study involved a pre-test, a treatment period, and a post-test administered to two experimental groups and one control group. The experimental groups received exposure to and instruction in relativisation, while the control group was limited to exposure only. The tests contained both written and oral measures. The learners pre-instruction knowledge of relativisation was fairly similar and all groups showed an improvement on the post-test. However, the experimental groups improved twice as much as the control group. Furthermore, the instructed learners were able to generalise their new knowledge to other contexts of relativisation . a phenomenon not unlike that of generalising within a parameter (Towell and Hawkins 1994:178). 5.2.4. White, Spada, Lightbown and Ranta (1991) White et al. investigated the effect of explicit teaching and corrective feedback on L2 learners acquisition of English questions. The subjects were 10 to 12 year old French-speaking students who were beginner level English L2 learners. 9 The study, which was conducted in two phases, employed two experimental groups. One
group received instruction on question formation (the instructed group), while the second group was instructed on adverb placement (the uninstructed group). However, both groups were tested on their knowledge of questions. The first phase of the study consisted of a twoweek period. During the first week of this period, the subjects received three hours of instruction and, during the second week, two hours of follow-up activities. The results of a written post-test showed that explicit instruction had a positive effect on the subjects knowledge of English questions in that the instructed group significantly outperformed the uninstructed group. Phase 2 involved two experimental groups, namely an instructed group, which received instruction on English questions and an uninstructed group, instructed on English adverbs, as well as a comparison group of monolingual English speakers of the same age. Four and a half hours of instruction on question formation was given in the first week of a two-week period. In the second week, the learners spent four hours on follow-up activities. The learners knowledge of questions was tested on a pre-test, a post-test (on the first day after instruction has ended) and a follow-up test (five weeks later). The tests consisted of two written tasks and an oral production task. The results of the written tasks show that the instructed group showed far greater improvement than did the uninstructed group, although neither group performed at native speaker levels. The positive effect of instruction was also reflected in performance on the oral task. However, the learners still accepted incorrect forms in the written test, and produced both correct and incorrect forms in the oral task. The positive results of the post-test were duplicated in the follow-up test 5 weeks later. 5.3. Non-systematic variability The behaviour of the subjects in the discussed studies can be labelled "non-systematically variable behaviour". Non-systematically variable behaviour is the apparently interchangeable use of two or more variants of a grammatical property in a given context under the same conditions (Towell and Hawkins 1994:144). An example of this kind of behaviour is where a L1 speaker of Xhosa, during the course of the same conversation held in English, uses the pronouns he and she interchangeably when referring to a female. In the context of the post10 tests in the studies, where conditions were stable, the learners used one variant in correctly reproducing the forms that had been taught. They used another variant in cases where they were unable to generalise their new knowledge to novel contexts. Non-systematically variable behaviour can be viewed as a consequence of apparent parameter resetting. The learners in the studies acquired knowledge about the target L2. This LLK was stored in long-term memory. Towell and Hawkins (1994:164-5) point out that long-term memory is associated with automatic processes and that language becomes automatised only when familiarity is achieved. One can therefore assume that, as a result of exposure to nonPLD, the learners were sufficiently familiar with the relevant L2 forms to produce them automatically. This appears to have been the case in the context of the (written) post-tests. In reproducing their new knowledge correctly, the learners gave the impression of having reset the relevant parameters. Actual parameter resetting could, however, not have occurred, because the learners in (Felix and Weigl 1991) were unable to generalise their new knowledge. Also, in (White 1991) it was shown that parameter resetting had not occurred because the positive effect of non-PLD was not long term (Towell and Hawkins 1994:181). Finally, the results of neither (Doughty 1991) nor (White et al. 1991) constitute conclusive
proof of parameter resetting because (i) there were no tests for long-term effects and (ii) in the case of (Doughty 1991), the language forms were not elicited in spontaneous speech. Because actual parameter resetting had not taken place, one can conclude that the learners produced forms which derived either from LLK or from the L1 parameter setting (Towell and Hawkins 1994:199). As can be seen in the studies, these two forms appear to be in "free" or nonsystematic variation in the learners L2 production (ibid). 5.4. Conclusion It would appear that Towell and Hawkins are correct in claiming that learners who receive explicit instruction and negative feedback merely behave "as if" the parameter has been reset. The results of the studies indicate that although non-PLD can modify learner language, it cannot affect competence. These findings appear to confirm Krashens and Schwartzs modular view of the human mind. This does not, however, mean that L2 learning is doomed to failure. As Schwartz (1993:160) points out, even though non-PLD cannot affect 11 competence, it can affect (learned) linguistic behaviour and that "sometimes that may be all we are seeking." In other words, by virtue of LLB, the learner is able to produce utterances which appear to be governed by the L2 parameter setting (that is, native-like utterances), as did the learners in the studies. 6. SUMMARY Interlanguage variability has been shown to result from the way in which mental systems involved in the construction of interlanguage grammars interact with different types of linguistic input. L2 learners are exposed to both PLD and non-PLD. The latter is considered necessary when PLD alone cannot guarantee the generation of correct hypotheses about the target L2. However, the studies on L2 acquisition reviewed above show that non-PLD can give rise only to LLK and cannot affect competence (i.e. cannot bring about parameter resetting). LLK (expressed as LLB) enables learners to give the appearance of producing native-like speech. However, in the absence of genuine parameter resetting, the learners may (i) produce language forms which derive from either LLK or from the L1 and (ii) use these forms apparently interchangeably in a given context under the same conditions. This kind of linguistic behaviour, known as "non-systematic variability", frequently characterises the interlanguage grammars of L2 learners.
Acknowledgement: This article is a substantially revised version of part of an assignment submitted to the Department of General Linguistics at Stellenbosch University in 2001 in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the MPhil Programme in General Linguistics. I wish to acknowledge the contribution of the Department and, in particular, that of Mrs Southwood in supervising the work from which this article resulted.
12 REFERENCES Cook, V. and M. Newson. 1996. Chomsky's Universal Grammar. Oxford: John Blackwell Publishers. Doughty, C. 1991. Second language instruction does make a difference. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 13: 431-469. Felix, S.W. and W. Weigl. 1991. Universal Grammar in the classroom: the effects of formal instruction on second language acquisition. Second Language Research 7(2): 162-181. Gass, S.M. and L. Selinker. 1994. Second language acquisition. An introduction. Hillsdale,
N.J., etc.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Krashen, S.D. 1985. The Input Hypothesis: Issues and implications. London and New York: Longman. Krashen, S.D. 1994. The input hypothesis and its rivals. In N.C. Ellis (ed.) 1994. Implicit and explicit learning of languages. London and New York: Academic Press. p. 45-77. Le Roux, C. 1994. Modular minds and input in second language acquisition. SPIL PLUS 26: 17-35. Radford, A. 1997. Syntactic theory and the structure of English. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Schwartz, B.1993. On explicit and negative data affecting and affecting competence and linguistic behaviour. Studies in second language acquisition 15: 147-163. Towell, R. and R. Hawkins. 1994. Approaches to second language acquisition. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Waher, H. 1991. Oor grense, kettings, en lisensies. n Sleutel tot Chomsky se teorie van grammatika [On boundaries, chains, and licences. A key to Chomskys theory of grammar]. SPIL PLUS 16. White, L. 1989. Universal Grammar and second language acquisition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. White, L. 1991. Adverb placement in second language acquisition: some effects of positive and negative evidence in the classroom. Second Language Research 7(2): 133-161. White, L., N. Spada, P.M. Lightbown, and L. Ranta. 1991. Input enhancement and L2 question formation. Applied Linguistics 12(4): 416-432. 13 White, L. 1985. The pro-drop parameter in adult second language acquisition. Language Learning 35: 47-62.

Yasmine Kilian, Port Elizabeth Technikon 1. INTRODUCTION One area of interest in research into second language (L2) acquisition is the nature and properties of the L2 learners developing knowledge of the target L2 grammar. Variability is evident in the interlanguage grammars of all L2 learners, irrespective of their levels of proficiency; their interlanguage use is characterised by the variable occurrence of target L2
forms, and the occurrence of more than one variant of a form where the target L2 has only one. This pattern of linguistic behaviour is called "non-systematic variability". In this article, the phenomenon of this variability in L2 knowledge is investigated. The existing body of knowledge about L2 acquisition provides ample proof that L2 learners are characteristically variable in their interlanguage use. The question arises, however, as to why the learners interlanguage grammars exhibit this variability. In this article, I attempt to answer this question. In brief, it appears that non-systematic variability results from the way in which mental systems involved in the construction of interlanguage grammars interact with different types of linguistic input. The linguistic input to which L2 learners are exposed differs from that to which first language (L1) learners are exposed (Towell and Hawkins 1994:155, 160). In addition to naturally occurring sentences of the target L2, L2 learners typically receive explicit instruction and negative feedback. These different kinds of linguistic input are processed by different mental systems and give rise to different kinds of interlanguage knowledge. According to Towell and Hawkins (1994:182), a learner who receives explicit instruction and negative feedback acquires "learned linguistic knowledge which enables him or her to behave in one context as if the parameter has been reset. The result may produce the kind of behaviour which has been called non-systematic variability". In order to arrive at an understanding of interlanguage variability, I will, firstly, examine the different types of knowledge systems which underlie linguistic behaviour. Secondly, I will 2 look at the kinds of linguistic input which give rise to the different knowledge systems. Finally, I will present an explanation for non-systematic variability based on the findings of four studies on L2 acquisition, namely (Felix and Weigl 1991), (White 1991), (Doughty 1991) and (White, Spada, Lightbown, and Ranta 1991). 2. LINGUISTIC KNOWLEDGE SYSTEMS Two different knowledge systems, namely competence and learned linguistic knowledge (LLK), are believed to underlie an L2 learners linguistic behaviour. Krashen points out the difference between competence and LLK, using the terms "acquired knowledge" and "learned knowledge" to refer to competence and LLK, respectively (cf., for instance, Krashen 1985:1, 1994:45). This distinction between competence and LLK is endorsed by Schwartz (1993:51), who relates competence to Universal Grammar (UG)-based knowledge and LLK to non-UG based knowledge. According to Krashen, acquired knowledge results from the subconscious process of language acquisition and, as a result, the language user is not consciously aware of the rules of the language s/he is using (Gass and Selinker1994:144). On Schwartzs (1993:51, 150) view, competence is innate (because UG is innate) and forms part of a unique language-specific cognitive system. Krashen considers learned knowledge to be conscious knowledge (Gass and Selinker 1994:144). When a language user has learned knowledge of a language, s/he knows the rules, is aware of them and is able to talk about them (ibid). Unlike competence, LLK is created via the central processing systems (Schwartz 1993:157). However, both competence and LLK affect fluency and accuracy of language production (Towell and Hawkins 1994:174). Competence and LLK are unobservable and have to be inferred from observable behaviour (Schwartz 1993:150). Competence and LLK each underlie a distinct type of L2 linguistic behaviour (ibid). Linguistic behaviour stemming from competence is called "performance",
whereas linguistic behaviour which stems from LLK is called "learned linguistic behaviour" (LLB) (ibid). 3 Towell and Hawkins (1994:175) point out that it may be difficult to distinguish performance from LLB. However, researchers should be able to tell the difference if they can determine whether the linguistic behaviour stems from knowledge that was acquired or from knowledge that was learnt. 3. TYPES OF LINGUISTIC INPUT In this section, the kinds of linguistic input that respectively give rise to competence and LLK, the two different knowledge systems underlying L2 linguistic behaviour, will be discussed. The role that each kind of input is claimed to play in L2 acquisition, according to Schwartz and Krashen, will then be discussed. According to Schwartz (1993:148), a learners knowledge system of a particular language can grow only if that learner is exposed to utterances of the language. This kind of linguistic input is called "primary linguistic data" (PLD) by Schwartz (1993:148) and "comprehensible input" by Krashen (1985:2-3). A learner uses PLD to generate hypotheses about the knowledge system underlying the L2 (Schwartz 1993:148). The learners resulting knowledge system is Schwartzs UG-based competence and Krashens acquired knowledge. Other types of linguistic data, i.e. other than PLD, are called "non-primary linguistic data" (non-PLD). Non-PLD can take the form of information about what is not possible in a particular language. Such information is obtained through correction and negative feedback. Another example of non-PLD is explicit instruction, or explicit data, received during formal (explicit) learning of the language (Gass and Selinker 1994:144). Non-PLD give rise to Schwartzs LLK and Krashens learned knowledge. 4. THE EFFECT, IF ANY, OF NON-PLD ON L2 COMPETENCE Can explicit instruction and negative feedback affect interlanguage competence? In this section, I will explain why this question arises. In order to do so, I will, firstly, relate Krashen and Schwartzs views on the effects of different kinds of input to a modular view of the 4 human mind. Secondly, I will explain why, in certain circumstances, L2 learners need explicit instruction and negative feedback to discover that their hypotheses about the L2 are incorrect. 4.1. Krashen's view Krashen (1994:45) views acquired knowledge and learned knowledge as being internalised differently. Furthermore, Krashen states that learned knowledge can never become acquired knowledge (Gass and Selinker 1994:145). It is evident, therefore, that, on Krashens view, (i) the knowledge system derived from PLD is distinct from that which is derived from non-PLD and (ii) non-PLD cannot affect competence. Krashens views are consistent with a modular view of the human mind. According to Le Roux (1994:25), a modular view of the mind implies that acquired knowledge is part of the language module while learned knowledge is stored in the central systems. The central systems can read information produced by the language module. However, the language module cannot read information, such as learned knowledge, which is stored in the central systems (ibid). 4.2. Schwartz's view
Krashens views on modularity are shared by Schwartz. Schwartz (1993:157) claims that only PLD can feed into the language module, based on the fact that L1 grammars are built on PLD only (ibid). According to Schwartz (1993:157-8), negative feedback and explicit instruction serve only to give the L2 learner knowledge about language, not knowledge of language (i.e., not competence). Schwartz (1993:157) argues that knowledge about language is computed and stored in the central systems and cannot be read by the language module. Therefore, nonPLD (that leads to knowledge about language) cannot affect competence (that is stored in the language module). 4.3. The role of non-PLD in L2 acquisition In contrast to Krashens and Schwartzs claims, White (1989) proposes that, in addition to PLD, learners also need non-PLD in order to arrive at the correct hypotheses about the L2 (cf. Le Roux 1994:23). Non-PLD are considered to be necessary when the L2 input to which the 5 learner is exposed is either (i) not target-like or (ii) does not provide evidence of what is not possible in the L2 (ibid). An example of the former is when the bulk of the L2 input is provided by other L2 learners of the same target L2. This is the case when L1 speakers of English learn Afrikaans as L2 from other L2 speakers of Afrikaans whose L1 is English. These L2 learners are exposed to a large quantity of non-target-like L2 input. For example, the learners will receive as input sentences such as *Hy dink dat hy het haar gesien (= He thinks that he has her seen) instead of Hy dink dat hy haar gesien het (=He thinks that he her seen has). As a result, these learners may fail to invert subject and verb after the complementiser dat (=that). In this case, they will need explicit instruction to acquire the correct target L2 form. Negative evidence becomes pertinent in (ii) above. To illustrate this point, consider the example of a L1 speaker of Afrikaans learning English. Afrikaans permits the placement of an adverb between a verb and its direct object, whereas English does not. Therefore, the L1 speaker of Afrikaans needs evidence that sentences such as *He eats quickly his food are not permitted in English. Having established that knowledge of some aspects of the L2 can be arrived at only via nonPLD, and bearing in mind Krashens (and Schwartzs) distinction between acquired and learned knowledge, L2 acquisition researchers have begun to enquire whether such knowledge can indeed affect competence (Le Roux 1994:24). 5. THE LINK BETWEEN APPARENT PARAMETER RESETTING AND NONSYSTEMATIC VARIABILITY In the following section, four studies, viz. (Felix and Weigl 1991), (White 1991), (Doughty 1991) and (White et al. 1991), are discussed. The results of these studies shed some light on the question of whether or not non-PLD can effect L2 acquisition. Their findings point to the fact that the learners behaved in one context "as if the parameter had been reset" and that apparent (as opposed to actual) parameter resetting "may produce the kind of behaviour which has been called nonsystematic variability" (Towell and Hawkins 1994:182). 6 5.1. Parameter resetting Linguistic parameters are a feature of UG. According to Radford (1997:16), UG theory, developed by Noam Chomsky, posits the existence of a universal set of innately endowed principles of grammar which determine the nature of grammatical structure in natural
languages. It is accepted that every principle has a limited number of parameters, where "parameter" refers to one of the possibilities left open by the principle, from which specific languages may choose (Waher 1991:4). In the process of L1 acquisition, a child acquires competence by selecting values for the parameters on the basis of PLD that s/he is exposed to (Cook & Newson 1996:79). According to some researchers (cf. Le Roux 1994:24, White 1985), it follows, therefore, that when the same child acquires an L2, s/he will have to reset the parameters to the correct target L2 values. Upon setting the new parameter value, the learner will end up with knowledge of other grammatical properties associated with the value of the parameter "for which no known (direct) PLD exist" (Schwartz 1993:154-5). This is so because parameters are associated with clusters of related grammatical properties, the knowledge of which is triggered once the value of the parameter has been set (Gass and Selinker 1994:128). When a French-speaking child, for instance, sets the verb movement parameter to [+ verb movement] on the basis of exposure to French sentences containing adverbs, the child should end up knowing (in the absence of direct PLD) that verb movement also applies to negatives and questions (White 1991:341). 5.2. The studies The findings of the studies below indicate that non-PLD have an immediate positive effect on the linguistic behaviour of the subjects. 5.2.1. Felix and Weigl (1991) This study focused on the acquisition of English as an L2 by 77 German-speaking high school students. The students were exposed to and learnt English in the classroom predominantly, through instruction from non-native speakers of English. 7 Three groups of students, representing beginning, intermediate and advanced learners, were tested for their ability to correctly judge UG-based grammaticality contrasts in English. These contrasts did not involve structural properties which are learnable on the basis of PLD, did not share similarities with L1 structures and were not explicitly taught in the classroom. The test results were very poor. Out of a total of 60 sentences, only one sixth were judged correctly by approximately 45% of the learners. Not only was no significant difference evident in the results of the three groups, the learners also appeared to have systematically given the wrong answer. A detailed analysis of the learners responses revealed that they employed two main strategies, namely (i) they assumed that what was permitted in the L1 was also permitted in the L2 and (ii) they refused to generalise beyond what had been taught. 5.2.2. White (1991) This study investigated the effects of positive and negative evidence on L2 acquisition. In particular, White focused on the acquisition of English adverbs by 11 and 12 year old Frenchspeaking learners. These learners were beginners, whose exposure to English was limited to approximately two hours of instruction per week. Francophone learners of English, whose L1 instantiates the subject-verb-adverb-object (SVAO) order, have to learn that this word order is incorrect in English. Furthermore, they have to acquire the SAV order for English, which is incorrect in French. According to White (1991:138), the SAV order can be learnt on the basis of positive evidence. SVAO sentences, however, do not occur in English. Thus, there is no positive evidence that such sentences are
ungrammatical. For this reason, it was hypothesised that L2 learners would require negative evidence in order not to produce SVAO sentences in English. Learners were assigned to two experimental groups. One group received instruction on English adverb placement, whereas the other group was given instruction on question formation instead of adverbs. Instruction on question formation aimed at familiarising the subjects with the activities used to test knowledge of adverbs. A comparison group consisted of 10 and 11 year old monolingual L1 speakers of English. The research design involved a 8 written pre-test, a period of instruction, two written post-tests, five weeks apart, and a written follow-up test one year later. The results indicated that only those learners who were instructed on adverb placement came to know that SVAO is not an accepted English word order. This knowledge was not lost in the period between the two post-tests. However, the follow-up test revealed that the instructed learners did not retain their new knowledge. 5.2.3. Doughty (1991) Doughty investigated the effects of instruction on the acquisition of relativisation in the L2. The subjects were 20 international students at the intermediate level of English L2 proficiency. All the subjects arrived in the US with a background of instruction in English as a foreign language and had little knowledge of English relative clauses. However, they were considered ready to acquire relativisation on the basis of their performance on a level identification test. The study involved a pre-test, a treatment period, and a post-test administered to two experimental groups and one control group. The experimental groups received exposure to and instruction in relativisation, while the control group was limited to exposure only. The tests contained both written and oral measures. The learners pre-instruction knowledge of relativisation was fairly similar and all groups showed an improvement on the post-test. However, the experimental groups improved twice as much as the control group. Furthermore, the instructed learners were able to generalise their new knowledge to other contexts of relativisation . a phenomenon not unlike that of generalising within a parameter (Towell and Hawkins 1994:178). 5.2.4. White, Spada, Lightbown and Ranta (1991) White et al. investigated the effect of explicit teaching and corrective feedback on L2 learners acquisition of English questions. The subjects were 10 to 12 year old French-speaking students who were beginner level English L2 learners. 9 The study, which was conducted in two phases, employed two experimental groups. One group received instruction on question formation (the instructed group), while the second group was instructed on adverb placement (the uninstructed group). However, both groups were tested on their knowledge of questions. The first phase of the study consisted of a twoweek period. During the first week of this period, the subjects received three hours of instruction and, during the second week, two hours of follow-up activities. The results of a written post-test showed that explicit instruction had a positive effect on the subjects knowledge of English questions in that the instructed group significantly outperformed the uninstructed group. Phase 2 involved two experimental groups, namely an instructed group, which received instruction on English questions and an uninstructed group, instructed on English adverbs, as
well as a comparison group of monolingual English speakers of the same age. Four and a half hours of instruction on question formation was given in the first week of a two-week period. In the second week, the learners spent four hours on follow-up activities. The learners knowledge of questions was tested on a pre-test, a post-test (on the first day after instruction has ended) and a follow-up test (five weeks later). The tests consisted of two written tasks and an oral production task. The results of the written tasks show that the instructed group showed far greater improvement than did the uninstructed group, although neither group performed at native speaker levels. The positive effect of instruction was also reflected in performance on the oral task. However, the learners still accepted incorrect forms in the written test, and produced both correct and incorrect forms in the oral task. The positive results of the post-test were duplicated in the follow-up test 5 weeks later. 5.3. Non-systematic variability The behaviour of the subjects in the discussed studies can be labelled "non-systematically variable behaviour". Non-systematically variable behaviour is the apparently interchangeable use of two or more variants of a grammatical property in a given context under the same conditions (Towell and Hawkins 1994:144). An example of this kind of behaviour is where a L1 speaker of Xhosa, during the course of the same conversation held in English, uses the pronouns he and she interchangeably when referring to a female. In the context of the post10 tests in the studies, where conditions were stable, the learners used one variant in correctly reproducing the forms that had been taught. They used another variant in cases where they were unable to generalise their new knowledge to novel contexts. Non-systematically variable behaviour can be viewed as a consequence of apparent parameter resetting. The learners in the studies acquired knowledge about the target L2. This LLK was stored in long-term memory. Towell and Hawkins (1994:164-5) point out that long-term memory is associated with automatic processes and that language becomes automatised only when familiarity is achieved. One can therefore assume that, as a result of exposure to nonPLD, the learners were sufficiently familiar with the relevant L2 forms to produce them automatically. This appears to have been the case in the context of the (written) post-tests. In reproducing their new knowledge correctly, the learners gave the impression of having reset the relevant parameters. Actual parameter resetting could, however, not have occurred, because the learners in (Felix and Weigl 1991) were unable to generalise their new knowledge. Also, in (White 1991) it was shown that parameter resetting had not occurred because the positive effect of non-PLD was not long term (Towell and Hawkins 1994:181). Finally, the results of neither (Doughty 1991) nor (White et al. 1991) constitute conclusive proof of parameter resetting because (i) there were no tests for long-term effects and (ii) in the case of (Doughty 1991), the language forms were not elicited in spontaneous speech. Because actual parameter resetting had not taken place, one can conclude that the learners produced forms which derived either from LLK or from the L1 parameter setting (Towell and Hawkins 1994:199). As can be seen in the studies, these two forms appear to be in "free" or nonsystematic variation in the learners L2 production (ibid). 5.4. Conclusion It would appear that Towell and Hawkins are correct in claiming that learners who receive explicit instruction and negative feedback merely behave "as if" the parameter has been reset.
The results of the studies indicate that although non-PLD can modify learner language, it cannot affect competence. These findings appear to confirm Krashens and Schwartzs modular view of the human mind. This does not, however, mean that L2 learning is doomed to failure. As Schwartz (1993:160) points out, even though non-PLD cannot affect 11 competence, it can affect (learned) linguistic behaviour and that "sometimes that may be all we are seeking." In other words, by virtue of LLB, the learner is able to produce utterances which appear to be governed by the L2 parameter setting (that is, native-like utterances), as did the learners in the studies. 6. SUMMARY Interlanguage variability has been shown to result from the way in which mental systems involved in the construction of interlanguage grammars interact with different types of linguistic input. L2 learners are exposed to both PLD and non-PLD. The latter is considered necessary when PLD alone cannot guarantee the generation of correct hypotheses about the target L2. However, the studies on L2 acquisition reviewed above show that non-PLD can give rise only to LLK and cannot affect competence (i.e. cannot bring about parameter resetting). LLK (expressed as LLB) enables learners to give the appearance of producing native-like speech. However, in the absence of genuine parameter resetting, the learners may (i) produce language forms which derive from either LLK or from the L1 and (ii) use these forms apparently interchangeably in a given context under the same conditions. This kind of linguistic behaviour, known as "non-systematic variability", frequently characterises the interlanguage grammars of L2 learners.
12 REFERENCES Cook, V. and M. Newson. 1996. Chomsky's Universal Grammar. Oxford: John Blackwell Publishers. Doughty, C. 1991. Second language instruction does make a difference. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 13: 431-469. Felix, S.W. and W. Weigl. 1991. Universal Grammar in the classroom: the effects of formal instruction on second language acquisition. Second Language Research 7(2): 162-181. Gass, S.M. and L. Selinker. 1994. Second language acquisition. An introduction. Hillsdale, N.J., etc.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Krashen, S.D. 1985. The Input Hypothesis: Issues and implications. London and New York: Longman. Krashen, S.D. 1994. The input hypothesis and its rivals. In N.C. Ellis (ed.) 1994. Implicit and explicit learning of languages. London and New York: Academic Press. p. 45-77. Le Roux, C. 1994. Modular minds and input in second language acquisition. SPIL PLUS 26: 17-35. Radford, A. 1997. Syntactic theory and the structure of English. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Schwartz, B.1993. On explicit and negative data affecting and affecting competence and
linguistic behaviour. Studies in second language acquisition 15: 147-163. Towell, R. and R. Hawkins. 1994. Approaches to second language acquisition. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Waher, H. 1991. Oor grense, kettings, en lisensies. n Sleutel tot Chomsky se teorie van grammatika [On boundaries, chains, and licences. A key to Chomskys theory of grammar]. SPIL PLUS 16. White, L. 1989. Universal Grammar and second language acquisition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. White, L. 1991. Adverb placement in second language acquisition: some effects of positive and negative evidence in the classroom. Second Language Research 7(2): 133-161. White, L., N. Spada, P.M. Lightbown, and L. Ranta. 1991. Input enhancement and L2 question formation. Applied Linguistics 12(4): 416-432. 13 White, L. 1985. The pro-drop parameter in adult second language acquisition. Language Learning 35: 47-62.

Yasmine Kilian, Port Elizabeth Technikon 1. INTRODUCTION One area of interest in research into second language (L2) acquisition is the nature and properties of the L2 learners developing knowledge of the target L2 grammar. Variability is evident in the interlanguage grammars of all L2 learners, irrespective of their levels of proficiency; their interlanguage use is characterised by the variable occurrence of target L2 forms, and the occurrence of more than one variant of a form where the target L2 has only one. This pattern of linguistic behaviour is called "non-systematic variability". In this article, the phenomenon of this variability in L2 knowledge is investigated. The existing body of knowledge about L2 acquisition provides ample proof that L2 learners are characteristically variable in their interlanguage use. The question arises, however, as to why the learners interlanguage grammars exhibit this variability. In this article, I attempt to answer this question. In brief, it appears that non-systematic variability results from the way in which mental systems involved in the construction of interlanguage grammars interact with different types of linguistic input. The linguistic input to which L2 learners are exposed
differs from that to which first language (L1) learners are exposed (Towell and Hawkins 1994:155, 160). In addition to naturally occurring sentences of the target L2, L2 learners typically receive explicit instruction and negative feedback. These different kinds of linguistic input are processed by different mental systems and give rise to different kinds of interlanguage knowledge. According to Towell and Hawkins (1994:182), a learner who receives explicit instruction and negative feedback acquires "learned linguistic knowledge which enables him or her to behave in one context as if the parameter has been reset. The result may produce the kind of behaviour which has been called non-systematic variability". In order to arrive at an understanding of interlanguage variability, I will, firstly, examine the different types of knowledge systems which underlie linguistic behaviour. Secondly, I will 2 look at the kinds of linguistic input which give rise to the different knowledge systems. Finally, I will present an explanation for non-systematic variability based on the findings of four studies on L2 acquisition, namely (Felix and Weigl 1991), (White 1991), (Doughty 1991) and (White, Spada, Lightbown, and Ranta 1991). 2. LINGUISTIC KNOWLEDGE SYSTEMS Two different knowledge systems, namely competence and learned linguistic knowledge (LLK), are believed to underlie an L2 learners linguistic behaviour. Krashen points out the difference between competence and LLK, using the terms "acquired knowledge" and "learned knowledge" to refer to competence and LLK, respectively (cf., for instance, Krashen 1985:1, 1994:45). This distinction between competence and LLK is endorsed by Schwartz (1993:51), who relates competence to Universal Grammar (UG)-based knowledge and LLK to non-UG based knowledge. According to Krashen, acquired knowledge results from the subconscious process of language acquisition and, as a result, the language user is not consciously aware of the rules of the language s/he is using (Gass and Selinker1994:144). On Schwartzs (1993:51, 150) view, competence is innate (because UG is innate) and forms part of a unique language-specific cognitive system. Krashen considers learned knowledge to be conscious knowledge (Gass and Selinker 1994:144). When a language user has learned knowledge of a language, s/he knows the rules, is aware of them and is able to talk about them (ibid). Unlike competence, LLK is created via the central processing systems (Schwartz 1993:157). However, both competence and LLK affect fluency and accuracy of language production (Towell and Hawkins 1994:174). Competence and LLK are unobservable and have to be inferred from observable behaviour (Schwartz 1993:150). Competence and LLK each underlie a distinct type of L2 linguistic behaviour (ibid). Linguistic behaviour stemming from competence is called "performance", whereas linguistic behaviour which stems from LLK is called "learned linguistic behaviour" (LLB) (ibid). 3 Towell and Hawkins (1994:175) point out that it may be difficult to distinguish performance from LLB. However, researchers should be able to tell the difference if they can determine whether the linguistic behaviour stems from knowledge that was acquired or from knowledge that was learnt. 3. TYPES OF LINGUISTIC INPUT In this section, the kinds of linguistic input that respectively give rise to competence and
LLK, the two different knowledge systems underlying L2 linguistic behaviour, will be discussed. The role that each kind of input is claimed to play in L2 acquisition, according to Schwartz and Krashen, will then be discussed. According to Schwartz (1993:148), a learners knowledge system of a particular language can grow only if that learner is exposed to utterances of the language. This kind of linguistic input is called "primary linguistic data" (PLD) by Schwartz (1993:148) and "comprehensible input" by Krashen (1985:2-3). A learner uses PLD to generate hypotheses about the knowledge system underlying the L2 (Schwartz 1993:148). The learners resulting knowledge system is Schwartzs UG-based competence and Krashens acquired knowledge. Other types of linguistic data, i.e. other than PLD, are called "non-primary linguistic data" (non-PLD). Non-PLD can take the form of information about what is not possible in a particular language. Such information is obtained through correction and negative feedback. Another example of non-PLD is explicit instruction, or explicit data, received during formal (explicit) learning of the language (Gass and Selinker 1994:144). Non-PLD give rise to Schwartzs LLK and Krashens learned knowledge. 4. THE EFFECT, IF ANY, OF NON-PLD ON L2 COMPETENCE Can explicit instruction and negative feedback affect interlanguage competence? In this section, I will explain why this question arises. In order to do so, I will, firstly, relate Krashen and Schwartzs views on the effects of different kinds of input to a modular view of the 4 human mind. Secondly, I will explain why, in certain circumstances, L2 learners need explicit instruction and negative feedback to discover that their hypotheses about the L2 are incorrect. 4.1. Krashen's view Krashen (1994:45) views acquired knowledge and learned knowledge as being internalised differently. Furthermore, Krashen states that learned knowledge can never become acquired knowledge (Gass and Selinker 1994:145). It is evident, therefore, that, on Krashens view, (i) the knowledge system derived from PLD is distinct from that which is derived from non-PLD and (ii) non-PLD cannot affect competence. Krashens views are consistent with a modular view of the human mind. According to Le Roux (1994:25), a modular view of the mind implies that acquired knowledge is part of the language module while learned knowledge is stored in the central systems. The central systems can read information produced by the language module. However, the language module cannot read information, such as learned knowledge, which is stored in the central systems (ibid). 4.2. Schwartz's view Krashens views on modularity are shared by Schwartz. Schwartz (1993:157) claims that only PLD can feed into the language module, based on the fact that L1 grammars are built on PLD only (ibid). According to Schwartz (1993:157-8), negative feedback and explicit instruction serve only to give the L2 learner knowledge about language, not knowledge of language (i.e., not competence). Schwartz (1993:157) argues that knowledge about language is computed and stored in the central systems and cannot be read by the language module. Therefore, nonPLD (that leads to knowledge about language) cannot affect competence (that is stored in the language module).
4.3. The role of non-PLD in L2 acquisition In contrast to Krashens and Schwartzs claims, White (1989) proposes that, in addition to PLD, learners also need non-PLD in order to arrive at the correct hypotheses about the L2 (cf. Le Roux 1994:23). Non-PLD are considered to be necessary when the L2 input to which the 5 learner is exposed is either (i) not target-like or (ii) does not provide evidence of what is not possible in the L2 (ibid). An example of the former is when the bulk of the L2 input is provided by other L2 learners of the same target L2. This is the case when L1 speakers of English learn Afrikaans as L2 from other L2 speakers of Afrikaans whose L1 is English. These L2 learners are exposed to a large quantity of non-target-like L2 input. For example, the learners will receive as input sentences such as *Hy dink dat hy het haar gesien (= He thinks that he has her seen) instead of Hy dink dat hy haar gesien het (=He thinks that he her seen has). As a result, these learners may fail to invert subject and verb after the complementiser dat (=that). In this case, they will need explicit instruction to acquire the correct target L2 form. Negative evidence becomes pertinent in (ii) above. To illustrate this point, consider the example of a L1 speaker of Afrikaans learning English. Afrikaans permits the placement of an adverb between a verb and its direct object, whereas English does not. Therefore, the L1 speaker of Afrikaans needs evidence that sentences such as *He eats quickly his food are not permitted in English. Having established that knowledge of some aspects of the L2 can be arrived at only via nonPLD, and bearing in mind Krashens (and Schwartzs) distinction between acquired and learned knowledge, L2 acquisition researchers have begun to enquire whether such knowledge can indeed affect competence (Le Roux 1994:24). 5. THE LINK BETWEEN APPARENT PARAMETER RESETTING AND NONSYSTEMATIC VARIABILITY In the following section, four studies, viz. (Felix and Weigl 1991), (White 1991), (Doughty 1991) and (White et al. 1991), are discussed. The results of these studies shed some light on the question of whether or not non-PLD can effect L2 acquisition. Their findings point to the fact that the learners behaved in one context "as if the parameter had been reset" and that apparent (as opposed to actual) parameter resetting "may produce the kind of behaviour which has been called nonsystematic variability" (Towell and Hawkins 1994:182). 6 5.1. Parameter resetting Linguistic parameters are a feature of UG. According to Radford (1997:16), UG theory, developed by Noam Chomsky, posits the existence of a universal set of innately endowed principles of grammar which determine the nature of grammatical structure in natural languages. It is accepted that every principle has a limited number of parameters, where "parameter" refers to one of the possibilities left open by the principle, from which specific languages may choose (Waher 1991:4). In the process of L1 acquisition, a child acquires competence by selecting values for the parameters on the basis of PLD that s/he is exposed to (Cook & Newson 1996:79). According to some researchers (cf. Le Roux 1994:24, White 1985), it follows, therefore, that when the same child acquires an L2, s/he will have to reset the parameters to the correct target L2 values. Upon setting the new parameter value, the learner will end up with knowledge of other grammatical properties associated with the value of the parameter "for which no known (direct) PLD exist" (Schwartz 1993:154-5). This is so
because parameters are associated with clusters of related grammatical properties, the knowledge of which is triggered once the value of the parameter has been set (Gass and Selinker 1994:128). When a French-speaking child, for instance, sets the verb movement parameter to [+ verb movement] on the basis of exposure to French sentences containing adverbs, the child should end up knowing (in the absence of direct PLD) that verb movement also applies to negatives and questions (White 1991:341). 5.2. The studies The findings of the studies below indicate that non-PLD have an immediate positive effect on the linguistic behaviour of the subjects. 5.2.1. Felix and Weigl (1991) This study focused on the acquisition of English as an L2 by 77 German-speaking high school students. The students were exposed to and learnt English in the classroom predominantly, through instruction from non-native speakers of English. 7 Three groups of students, representing beginning, intermediate and advanced learners, were tested for their ability to correctly judge UG-based grammaticality contrasts in English. These contrasts did not involve structural properties which are learnable on the basis of PLD, did not share similarities with L1 structures and were not explicitly taught in the classroom. The test results were very poor. Out of a total of 60 sentences, only one sixth were judged correctly by approximately 45% of the learners. Not only was no significant difference evident in the results of the three groups, the learners also appeared to have systematically given the wrong answer. A detailed analysis of the learners responses revealed that they employed two main strategies, namely (i) they assumed that what was permitted in the L1 was also permitted in the L2 and (ii) they refused to generalise beyond what had been taught. 5.2.2. White (1991) This study investigated the effects of positive and negative evidence on L2 acquisition. In particular, White focused on the acquisition of English adverbs by 11 and 12 year old Frenchspeaking learners. These learners were beginners, whose exposure to English was limited to approximately two hours of instruction per week. Francophone learners of English, whose L1 instantiates the subject-verb-adverb-object (SVAO) order, have to learn that this word order is incorrect in English. Furthermore, they have to acquire the SAV order for English, which is incorrect in French. According to White (1991:138), the SAV order can be learnt on the basis of positive evidence. SVAO sentences, however, do not occur in English. Thus, there is no positive evidence that such sentences are ungrammatical. For this reason, it was hypothesised that L2 learners would require negative evidence in order not to produce SVAO sentences in English. Learners were assigned to two experimental groups. One group received instruction on English adverb placement, whereas the other group was given instruction on question formation instead of adverbs. Instruction on question formation aimed at familiarising the subjects with the activities used to test knowledge of adverbs. A comparison group consisted of 10 and 11 year old monolingual L1 speakers of English. The research design involved a 8 written pre-test, a period of instruction, two written post-tests, five weeks apart, and a written
follow-up test one year later. The results indicated that only those learners who were instructed on adverb placement came to know that SVAO is not an accepted English word order. This knowledge was not lost in the period between the two post-tests. However, the follow-up test revealed that the instructed learners did not retain their new knowledge. 5.2.3. Doughty (1991) Doughty investigated the effects of instruction on the acquisition of relativisation in the L2. The subjects were 20 international students at the intermediate level of English L2 proficiency. All the subjects arrived in the US with a background of instruction in English as a foreign language and had little knowledge of English relative clauses. However, they were considered ready to acquire relativisation on the basis of their performance on a level identification test. The study involved a pre-test, a treatment period, and a post-test administered to two experimental groups and one control group. The experimental groups received exposure to and instruction in relativisation, while the control group was limited to exposure only. The tests contained both written and oral measures. The learners pre-instruction knowledge of relativisation was fairly similar and all groups showed an improvement on the post-test. However, the experimental groups improved twice as much as the control group. Furthermore, the instructed learners were able to generalise their new knowledge to other contexts of relativisation . a phenomenon not unlike that of generalising within a parameter (Towell and Hawkins 1994:178). 5.2.4. White, Spada, Lightbown and Ranta (1991) White et al. investigated the effect of explicit teaching and corrective feedback on L2 learners acquisition of English questions. The subjects were 10 to 12 year old French-speaking students who were beginner level English L2 learners. 9 The study, which was conducted in two phases, employed two experimental groups. One group received instruction on question formation (the instructed group), while the second group was instructed on adverb placement (the uninstructed group). However, both groups were tested on their knowledge of questions. The first phase of the study consisted of a twoweek period. During the first week of this period, the subjects received three hours of instruction and, during the second week, two hours of follow-up activities. The results of a written post-test showed that explicit instruction had a positive effect on the subjects knowledge of English questions in that the instructed group significantly outperformed the uninstructed group. Phase 2 involved two experimental groups, namely an instructed group, which received instruction on English questions and an uninstructed group, instructed on English adverbs, as well as a comparison group of monolingual English speakers of the same age. Four and a half hours of instruction on question formation was given in the first week of a two-week period. In the second week, the learners spent four hours on follow-up activities. The learners knowledge of questions was tested on a pre-test, a post-test (on the first day after instruction has ended) and a follow-up test (five weeks later). The tests consisted of two written tasks and an oral production task. The results of the written tasks show that the instructed group showed far greater improvement than did the uninstructed group, although neither group performed at native speaker levels. The positive effect of instruction was also reflected in performance on the oral task. However, the learners still accepted incorrect forms in the written test, and
produced both correct and incorrect forms in the oral task. The positive results of the post-test were duplicated in the follow-up test 5 weeks later. 5.3. Non-systematic variability The behaviour of the subjects in the discussed studies can be labelled "non-systematically variable behaviour". Non-systematically variable behaviour is the apparently interchangeable use of two or more variants of a grammatical property in a given context under the same conditions (Towell and Hawkins 1994:144). An example of this kind of behaviour is where a L1 speaker of Xhosa, during the course of the same conversation held in English, uses the pronouns he and she interchangeably when referring to a female. In the context of the post10 tests in the studies, where conditions were stable, the learners used one variant in correctly reproducing the forms that had been taught. They used another variant in cases where they were unable to generalise their new knowledge to novel contexts. Non-systematically variable behaviour can be viewed as a consequence of apparent parameter resetting. The learners in the studies acquired knowledge about the target L2. This LLK was stored in long-term memory. Towell and Hawkins (1994:164-5) point out that long-term memory is associated with automatic processes and that language becomes automatised only when familiarity is achieved. One can therefore assume that, as a result of exposure to nonPLD, the learners were sufficiently familiar with the relevant L2 forms to produce them automatically. This appears to have been the case in the context of the (written) post-tests. In reproducing their new knowledge correctly, the learners gave the impression of having reset the relevant parameters. Actual parameter resetting could, however, not have occurred, because the learners in (Felix and Weigl 1991) were unable to generalise their new knowledge. Also, in (White 1991) it was shown that parameter resetting had not occurred because the positive effect of non-PLD was not long term (Towell and Hawkins 1994:181). Finally, the results of neither (Doughty 1991) nor (White et al. 1991) constitute conclusive proof of parameter resetting because (i) there were no tests for long-term effects and (ii) in the case of (Doughty 1991), the language forms were not elicited in spontaneous speech. Because actual parameter resetting had not taken place, one can conclude that the learners produced forms which derived either from LLK or from the L1 parameter setting (Towell and Hawkins 1994:199). As can be seen in the studies, these two forms appear to be in "free" or nonsystematic variation in the learners L2 production (ibid). 5.4. Conclusion It would appear that Towell and Hawkins are correct in claiming that learners who receive explicit instruction and negative feedback merely behave "as if" the parameter has been reset. The results of the studies indicate that although non-PLD can modify learner language, it cannot affect competence. These findings appear to confirm Krashens and Schwartzs modular view of the human mind. This does not, however, mean that L2 learning is doomed to failure. As Schwartz (1993:160) points out, even though non-PLD cannot affect 11 competence, it can affect (learned) linguistic behaviour and that "sometimes that may be all we are seeking." In other words, by virtue of LLB, the learner is able to produce utterances which appear to be governed by the L2 parameter setting (that is, native-like utterances), as did the learners in the studies.
6. SUMMARY Interlanguage variability has been shown to result from the way in which mental systems involved in the construction of interlanguage grammars interact with different types of linguistic input. L2 learners are exposed to both PLD and non-PLD. The latter is considered necessary when PLD alone cannot guarantee the generation of correct hypotheses about the target L2. However, the studies on L2 acquisition reviewed above show that non-PLD can give rise only to LLK and cannot affect competence (i.e. cannot bring about parameter resetting). LLK (expressed as LLB) enables learners to give the appearance of producing native-like speech. However, in the absence of genuine parameter resetting, the learners may (i) produce language forms which derive from either LLK or from the L1 and (ii) use these forms apparently interchangeably in a given context under the same conditions. This kind of linguistic behaviour, known as "non-systematic variability", frequently characterises the interlanguage grammars of L2 learners.
12 REFERENCES Cook, V. and M. Newson. 1996. Chomsky's Universal Grammar. Oxford: John Blackwell Publishers. Doughty, C. 1991. Second language instruction does make a difference. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 13: 431-469. Felix, S.W. and W. Weigl. 1991. Universal Grammar in the classroom: the effects of formal instruction on second language acquisition. Second Language Research 7(2): 162-181. Gass, S.M. and L. Selinker. 1994. Second language acquisition. An introduction. Hillsdale, N.J., etc.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Krashen, S.D. 1985. The Input Hypothesis: Issues and implications. London and New York: Longman. Krashen, S.D. 1994. The input hypothesis and its rivals. In N.C. Ellis (ed.) 1994. Implicit and explicit learning of languages. London and New York: Academic Press. p. 45-77. Le Roux, C. 1994. Modular minds and input in second language acquisition. SPIL PLUS 26: 17-35. Radford, A. 1997. Syntactic theory and the structure of English. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Schwartz, B.1993. On explicit and negative data affecting and affecting competence and linguistic behaviour. Studies in second language acquisition 15: 147-163. Towell, R. and R. Hawkins. 1994. Approaches to second language acquisition. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Waher, H. 1991. Oor grense, kettings, en lisensies. n Sleutel tot Chomsky se teorie van grammatika [On boundaries, chains, and licences. A key to Chomskys theory of grammar]. SPIL PLUS 16. White, L. 1989. Universal Grammar and second language acquisition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. White, L. 1991. Adverb placement in second language acquisition: some effects of positive
and negative evidence in the classroom. Second Language Research 7(2): 133-161. White, L., N. Spada, P.M. Lightbown, and L. Ranta. 1991. Input enhancement and L2 question formation. Applied Linguistics 12(4): 416-432. 13 White, L. 1985. The pro-drop parameter in adult second language acquisition. Language Learning 35: 47-62.
Interlanguage
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search For other meanings, see Interlanguage (disambiguation). This article is written like a personal reflection or essay rather than an encyclopedic description of the subject. Please help improve it by rewriting it in an encyclopedic style.
(November 2010)
An interlanguage is an emerging linguistic system that has been developed by a learner of a second language (or L2) who has not become fully proficient yet but is approximating the target language: preserving some features of their first language (or L1), or overgeneralizing target language rules in speaking or writing the target language and creating innovations. An interlanguage is idiosyncratically based on the learners' experiences with the L2. It can fossilize, or cease developing, in any of its developmental stages. The interlanguage rules are claimed to be shaped by several factors, including: L1 transfer, transfer of training, strategies of L2 learning (e.g. simplification), strategies of L2 communication (or communication strategies like circumlocution), and overgeneralization of the target language patterns. Interlanguage is based on the theory that there is a "psychological structure latent in the brain" which is activated when one attempts to learn a second language. Interlanguage theory is usually credited to Larry Selinker but others such as Uriel Weinreich have claimed to have formulated the basic concept before Selinker's 1972 paper. Selinker noted that in a given situation the utterances produced by the learner are different from those native speakers would produce had they attempted to convey the same meaning. This comparison reveals a separate linguistic system. This system can be observed when studying the utterances of the learner who attempts to produce meaning in using the target language; it is not seen when that same learner does form-focused tasks, such as
oral drills in a classroom. Interlanguage can be observed to be variable across different contexts; for example, it may be more accurate, complex and fluent in one discourse domain than in another (Tarone, 1979; Selinker & Douglas, 1985). To study the psychological processes involved one should compare the interlanguage utterances of the learner with two things: 1. Utterances in the native language to convey the same message produced by the learner 2. Utterances in the target language to convey the same message, produced by a native speaker of that language. Interlanguage work is a vibrant microcosm of linguistics. It is possible to apply an interlanguage perspective to learners' underlying knowledge of the target language sound system (interlanguage phonology), grammar (morphology and syntax), vocabulary (lexicon), and language-use norms found among learners (interlanguage pragmatics). By describing the ways in which learner language conforms to universal linguistic norms, interlanguage research has contributed greatly to our understanding of linguistic universals in SLA. See below, under "linguistic universals".
Contents
[hide]

1 Definition and relation to other types of language 2 Variability 3 Developmental patterns 4 Linguistic universals 5 See also 6 References 7 Further reading
[edit] Definition and relation to other types of language

The concept of interlanguage is closely related to other types of language, especially pidgins and creoles. Each of these languages has its own grammar and phonology. The difference is mostly one of variability, as a learner's interlanguage changes frequently as they become more proficient in the language. In addition, pidgins and creoles have many speakers and are developed as a group process. An interlanguage, on the other hand, is something that has only one speaker, the learner. At the very beginning of language learning, the learner has some idea of what the foreign language is like, and how it works. According to these ideas, they produce utterances, some of which may be correct, and others which may be wrong. Then, as the learner gains more knowledge about the
language, they may come up with new and better ideas of how it works. That's what interlanguage is: the developing "idea of how the other language works".
[edit] 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 nonmainstream 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.
[edit] Developmental patterns

Ellis (1994)[vague] distinguished between "order" to refer to the pattern in which different language features are acquired and "sequence" to denote the pattern by which a specific language feature is acquired.
[edit] Linguistic universals

Research on universal grammar (UG) has had a significant effect on SLA theory. In particular, scholarship in the interlanguage tradition has sought to show that learner languages conform to UG at all stages of development.[citation needed] A number of studies have supported this claim, although the evolving state of UG theory makes any firm conclusions difficult.[citation needed]
[edit] See also
Interlanguage in Context
2
Interlanguage in Context

3
Communication Strategies Interlanguage Variation Interlanguage Pragmatics
Langue and Parole

Langue is a well-defined object in the heterogeneous mass of facts of parole.
... It is the social side of language, outside the individual who can never create nor modify it by himself; it exists only by virtue of a sort of contract signed by members of a community. Ferdinand de Saussure
4
Langue and Parole

What part does parole play in the same community? It is the sum of what people say and includes (a) individual combinations that depend on the will of speakers, and (b) equally willful phonational acts that are necessary for the execution of these combinations. Parole is thus not a collective instrument; its manifestations are individual and momentary. Ferdinand de Saussure
Competence and Performance

Linguistic theory is concerned primarily with an ideal speaker-listener, in a perfectly homogeneous speech-community, who knows its language perfectly and is unaffected by such grammatically irrelevant conditions as memory limitations, distractions, shifts of attention and interest, and errors (random or characteristic) in applying his knowledge of the language in actual performance. Noam Chomsky
Competence and Performance

The fact that important and significant linguistic behavior can be non-systematic, not predictable by rule and without regular norms, makes it all the more important to look for empirical evidence of a system The use of a form of language for communication does not make it automatic that it forms a system the degree of systematicity is an empirical matter. William Labov
2
7
Variation in English
Schlep and hush puppy Variation vs. variability See-saw vs. teeter totter
Geographical variation in the lexicon:
What variation have you noticed
In the lexicon? In pronunciation? In grammar?

8
Variation in English
New Yorkers vary in their pronunciation of postvocalic (r)
New York [nu: jo:k] or [nu: jork] Fourth Floor [fo: flo:] or [for flor]
New Yorkers variation in (r) is systematic
Variation in Interlanguage
Morphology
Mary: The store is . a . just sells all the books for Christian. ... Mary: All Chinese . all the book is have to ship from Taiwan . because they didn't have the store.
10
Variation in Interlanguage Morphology

Jennifer: ... I think because my brother . a . hate girls when he was a Yun-yun: Really? Jennifer: Mm . was terrib- . he she . he's very strange I mean he . you know he was in the high school he wouldn't talk to girl you know ...
11
Variation in Interlanguage Morphology

Eva: And second problem . Many Catholics was . dissident. Richard: Dissidents. Eva: Dissidents.
12
Explaining Interlanguage Variation

Errors in production of plural (s) represent a slip on the part of the learner, whose knowledge of the correct form is obvious from the fact that he does not omit the plural ending consistently but only in some instances. Libuse Dukov (1984)
3
13

Interlanguage co-varies with linguistic context. Interlanguage variation is an indication of learners stage of acquisition. Learners style shift in the L2 in the same way they style shift in the L1. Interlanguage co-varies with the task that learners are performing. There are multiple factors that influence interlanguage variation.

14
Interlanguage co-varies with linguistic context

Lonna Dickerson The learner's interlanguage as a system of variable rules TESOL Quarterly, 9, 401-407, 1975.

15
Japanese learners pronunciation of (r) varies with linguistic context

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Free Speech Dialogue Reading Word List Reading Cons__Mid Vowel Cons__High Vowel
16
IL variation is an indication of learners stage of acquisition

Elizabeth Gatbonton Patterned phonetic variability in second language speech: A gradual diffusion model Canadian Modern Language Review, 34, 335-347, 1978.

17
French Canadians pronunciation of English (th)

Stage Environment1 Environment2 Environment3
D (V) (V) (V) C (V) (V) B (V) A

18
The Acquisition Phase
French Canadians pronunciation of English (th)

Stage Environment1 Environment2 Environment3
G111 F 1 1 (V) E 1 (V) (V)
The Replacement Phase
4
19
Learners style shift in the L2 in the same way they style shift in the L1
Leslie Beebe Sociolinguistic variation and style shifting in second language acquisition Language Learning, 30, 433-448, 1980.

20
Thai learners pronunciation of (r) in English

Initial (r) 48% 9% Conversation Listing Speech Style
21
Thai learners pronunciation of (r) in English

Final (r) 35% 72% Initial (r) 48% 9% Conversation Listing Speech Style
22
Interlanguage co-varies with the task that learners are performing

Elaine Tarone Variability in interlanguage use: A study of style-shifting in morphology and syntax Language Learning, 35, 373-404, 1985.

23
Interlanguage co-varies with the task that learners are performing

0 20 40 60 80 100 Grammar Test Interview Narrative NL = Arabic NL = Japanese
24

Interlanguage co-varies with linguistic context. Interlanguage variation is an indication of learners stage of acquisition. Learners style shift in the L2 in the same way they style shift in the L1. Interlanguage co-varies with the task that learners are performing. There are multiple factors that influence interlanguage variation.

5
25

Every time a speaker makes a choice of a word, a phrase, a structure, a pronunciation it influences or even determines other choices. When we add to these purely linguistic considerations the interactions between language and context, the complexity becomes very great. To work out the influences on some particular choice, we must
do multivariate analysis.
Systematic Variability Derived from heterogeneous competence model.In general it is relatively easy to handle since it can bepredicted and accounted for.Show the direction of learner language development. Individual variability Users knowledge of how to use thelanguage appropriatelyMakes up of integral part of the userscommunicative competence Situational Context similar to the stylistic variability observed in native-speaker usage.emphasized that language behaviour is predictable and style-shifting occurred systematically.
Example 1 Labov (1970)~ conducted a study of speech pattern of New Yorkers.~ the data was collected and classified in 5 categories:1) casual speech2) careful speech3) reading4) word lists5) minimal pairs~ These styles were spread along a continuum according to theamount of attention paid by the speakers to their own speech~ He studied the frequency of socially marked sound as theyoccurred in each speech style. Example 2 Occurrence of /z/ in the speech of ten Japanese students.The study was carried out in 9 months time in 3 differentoccasions.Activities:1) Free speaking2) Reading dialogues aloud3) Reading word lists aloudResult revealed that the correct target language variant wasmost frequently occurred in (3), least frequently in (1) and (2)in between.
Why the correct target language variant occurred in (3) reading theword lists aloud???The students were able to audio-monitor their speech and due tothat, they were able to use the target language variants closest toit.As agreed by Schmidt & Beebe: When a learner is able to attend closely to his speech, he may produce a higher incidence of target language forms
~ The study found out that, / / a prestige sound in New YorkEnglish occurred more compared to the non-prestige soundsuch as /t/.~ From this study, it proved that language behaviour waspredictable and style-shifting took place systematically.

The Variability of Interlanguage Use: Yasmine Kilian, Port Elizabeth Technikon

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Deskripsi Asli:

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

The Variability of Interlanguage Use: Yasmine Kilian, Port Elizabeth Technikon

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

1

THE VARIABILITY OF INTERLANGUAGE USE

THE VARIABILITY OF INTERLANGUAGE USE

THE VARIABILITY OF INTERLANGUAGE USE

[edit] Definition and relation to other types of language

[edit] Developmental patterns

[edit] Linguistic universals

[edit] See also

Communication Strategies Interlanguage Variation Interlanguage Pragmatics

Langue and Parole

Langue and Parole

Competence and Performance

Competence and Performance

Geographical variation in the lexicon:

What variation have you noticed

In the lexicon? In pronunciation? In grammar?

New Yorkers variation in (r) is systematic

Variation in Interlanguage Morphology

Variation in Interlanguage Morphology

Explaining Interlanguage Variation

Explaining Interlanguage Variation

Interlanguage co-varies with linguistic context

Japanese learners pronunciation of (r) varies with linguistic context

IL variation is an indication of learners stage of acquisition

French Canadians pronunciation of English (th)

D (V) (V) (V) C (V) (V) B (V) A

The Acquisition Phase

French Canadians pronunciation of English (th)

G111 F 1 1 (V) E 1 (V) (V)

The Replacement Phase

Thai learners pronunciation of (r) in English

Thai learners pronunciation of (r) in English

Interlanguage co-varies with the task that learners are performing

Interlanguage co-varies with the task that learners are performing

Explaining Interlanguage Variation

Explaining Interlanguage Variation

Anda mungkin juga menyukai