Variability in Inter Language

Variability in
Interlanguage
Interlanguage Variability
• 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 their style shift
in the L1.
• Interlanguage co-varies with the task that learners are

performing.
• There are multiple factors that influence interlanguage

variation.
Interlanguage
Variability
Systematic Non-Systematic
Variability Variability
Individual Contextual Free Performance

Variability Variability Variability Variability
Linguistic Context
Situational Context
Systematic Variability
• Derived from heterogeneous competence model.
• In general it is relatively easy to handle since it can be

predicted and accounted for.
• Show the direction of learner language development.

Status of Language Use
• Viewed differently by linguists.
• Approached in two categories:
1) Heterogeneous Competence Model
~ variability is classified as systematic.
~ emphasize on communication.
~ sees stylistic variability as the integral part of
competence.
~ seeks to characterize the user’s underlying
knowledge.
2) Homogenous Competence Model

~ variability is considered as non-systematic.
~ emphasize on performance.
~ ignores stylistic variability.
Individual variability
• User’s knowledge of how to use the

language appropriately
• Makes up of integral part of the user’s

communicative competence
The Study of Language Use
Labov (1970) lists five axioms:

1) Style shifting: All speakers possess several styles that then
adapted to fit the social context.
2) Attention: “Styles can be ranged along a single dimension,

measured by the amount of attention paid to speech”.
3) The Vernacular: The style which minimum attention is paid to

monitoring speech.
4) Formality: It is not possible to tap vernacular style of the user

by systematic observation of how he performs in a formal
context.
5) Good Data: The only way to obtain good data on the speech of
a language user is through systematic observation.
Observer’s Paradox
Formality: It is not possible to tap vernacular style

of the user by systematic observation of
how he performs in a formal context.
VS.
Good Data: The only way to obtain good data on the

speech of a language
user is through systematic observation.
Labov (1970)
“Good data require systematic observation, but this

prevents access to user’s vernacular style, which,
because it is the most systematic style, is the principal
goal of linguistic enquiry”
Situational
Context
Contextual
Variability
Linguistic
Context
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 speech
2) careful speech
3) reading
4) word lists
5) minimal pairs
~ These styles were spread along a continuum according to the
amount of attention paid by the speakers to their own speech
~ He studied the frequency of socially marked sound as they
occurred in each speech style.
~ The study found out that, / Θ / a prestige sound in New York
English occurred more compared to the non-prestige sound
such as /t/.
~ From this study, it proved that language behaviour was

predictable and style-shifting took place systematically.
Example 2
• Occurrence of /z/ in the speech of ten Japanese students.
• The study was carried out in 9 months time in 3 different

occasions.
• Activities:
1) Free speaking
2) Reading dialogues aloud
3) Reading word lists aloud
• Result revealed that the correct target language variant was

most frequently occurred in (3), least frequently in (1) and (2)
in between.
Why the correct target language variant occurred in (3) reading the
word lists aloud???
• The students were able to audio-monitor their speech and due to

that, they were able to use the target language variants closest to
it.
• 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”
Tarone (1983)
• Represents the effects of situational context as a continuum
of interlanguage styles.
• Consists of six or more styles.
• Level of styles:
1) Vernacular style – unattended speech data
2) Style 2 – attended speech data
3) Style 3
4) Style 4 various elicitation tasks
5) Style n
6) Careful Style – grammatical judgement
•
The Interlanguage Continuum
Vernacular
Style Style Style Style Careful
Style
2 3 4 n Style
Linguistic Context
• Occurs when two different linguistic context cause different forms.
• Even though in TL require the same form.
• Example:
1) Mr. Smith lives in Gloucester.
(correct example of the third person singular -s)
BUT….
fail to do so when the linguistic context consist of a subordinate

clause such as:
2) Mr. Smith who live in Gloucester married my sister.
• The variability may not involve a correct target language form at

all. It may consists of the use of two (or more) deviant forms.

Variability in Inter Language

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Variability in Inter Language

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Variability in Inter Language

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Variability in

• Interlanguage co-varies with linguistic context.

• Interlanguage variation is an indication of learners’ stage of

• Interlanguage co-varies with the task that learners are

• There are multiple factors that influence interlanguage

Individual Contextual Free Performance

• Derived from heterogeneous competence model.

• In general it is relatively easy to handle since it can be

• Show the direction of learner language development.

2) Homogenous Competence Model

• User’s knowledge of how to use the

• Makes up of integral part of the user’s

Labov (1970) lists five axioms:

2) Attention: “Styles can be ranged along a single dimension,

3) The Vernacular: The style which minimum attention is paid to

4) Formality: It is not possible to tap vernacular style of the user

Formality: It is not possible to tap vernacular style

Good Data: The only way to obtain good data on the

“Good data require systematic observation, but this

• similar to the stylistic variability observed in native-speaker

• emphasized that language behaviour is predictable and style-

~ From this study, it proved that language behaviour was

• Occurrence of /z/ in the speech of ten Japanese students.

• The study was carried out in 9 months time in 3 different

• Result revealed that the correct target language variant was

• The students were able to audio-monitor their speech and due to

• As agreed by Schmidt & Beebe:

“ When a learner is able to attend closely to his speech, he may

fail to do so when the linguistic context consist of a subordinate

• The variability may not involve a correct target language form at

You might also like