Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T13:44:45.444Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Variation and the Interlanguage Hypothesis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 November 2008

Richard Young
Richard Young
Affiliation:
University of Pennsylvania
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Previous studies of variation in interlanguage morphology have led to conflicting and contradictory claims concerning the relation between interlanguage forms and the contexts in which they occur. The present study suggests that such contradictions are due to the descriptively inadequate model of variation used in earlier studies. A multivariate model is proposed and applied to the analysis of variation in the acquisition of the English (s) pluralizaron rule by native speakers of Chinese. Three major groups of factors are shown to influence variation: stage of acquisition, linguistic environment, and communicative redundancy. Findings confirm the hypothesis that there exists a degree of systematicity in interlanguage, but suggest that the interlanguage system is best described in terms of probabilistic rules.

Type
Articles
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 10 , Issue 3 , October 1988 , pp. 281 - 302
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1988

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Adamson, H. D., & Kovac, C. (1981). Variation theory and second language acquisition: An analysis of Schumann's data. In Sankoff, D. & Cedergren, H. (Eds.), Variation omnibus (pp. 285–292). Edmonton, Alberta: Linguistic Research.Google Scholar
Adjémian, C. (1976). On the nature of interlanguage systems. Language Learning, 26, 297–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beebe, L. M. (1980). Sociohnguistic variation and style shifting in second language acquisition. Language Learning, 30, 433–448.Google Scholar
Beebe, L. M., & Zuengler, J. (1983). Accommodation theory: An explanation for style shifting in second language dialects. In Wolfson, N. & Judd, E. (Eds.), Sociolinguistics and language acquisition (pp. 195–213). Rowley, MA: Newbury.Google Scholar
Bell, A. (1984). Language style as audience design. Language in Society, 13, 145–204.Google Scholar
Brown, R., & Gilman, A. (1960). The pronouns of power and solidarity. In Sebeok, T. A. (Ed.), Style in language (pp. 253–276). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Cedergren, H. J., & Sankoff, D. (1974). Variable rules: Performance as a statistical reflection of competence. Language, 50, 333–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corder, S. P. (1967). The significance of learners' errors. IRAL, 5, 161–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dickerson, L. J., & Dickerson, W. B. (1977). Interlanguage phonology: Current research and future directions. In Corder, S. P. & Roulet, E. (Eds.), Actes du 5ème Colloque de Linguistique Appliquée de Neuchâtel: The notions of simplification, interlanguages and pidgins and their relation to second language acquisition (pp. 18–29). Geneva: Droz.Google Scholar
Dijkhoff, M. B. (1983). The process of pluralization in Papiamentu. In Carrington, L. D. (Ed.), Studies in Caribbean language (pp. 217–229). St. Augustine, Trinidad: Society for Caribbean Linguistics.Google Scholar
Eckman, F. R. (1981). On the naturalness of interlanguage phonological rules. Language Learning, 31, 195–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gatbonton, E. (1978). Patterned phonetic variability in second language speech: A gradual diffusion model. Canadian Modem Language Review, 34, 335–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gathercole, V. C. (1985). ‘He has too much hard questions’: The acquisition of the linguistic mass-count distinction in much and many. Journal of Child Language, 12, 395–415.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Guy, G. R. (1980). Variation in the group and the individual: The case of final stop deletion. In Labov, W. (Ed.), Locating language in time and space (pp. 1–36). New York: Academic.Google Scholar
Guy, G. R. (1981). Linguistic variation in Brazilian Portuguese: Aspects of the phonology, syntax, and language history. Doctoral dissertation, University of Pennsylvania. Dissertation Abstracts International, 42, 1127–A. (University Microfilms International order no. DEN81–17786.)Google Scholar
Huebner, T. (1983). A longitudinal analysis of the acquisition of English. Ann Arbor, MI: Karoma.Google Scholar
Innes, S. (1974). Developmental aspects of the plural formation in English. Unpublished master's thesis. University of Alberta, Edmonton.Google Scholar
Kay, P., & McDaniel, C. K. (1979). On the logic of variable rules. Language in Society, 8, 151–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kiparsky, P. (1972). Explanation in phonology. In Peters, S. (Ed.), Goals of linguistic theory (pp. 189–227). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Labov, W. (1969). Contraction, deletion, and inherent variability of the English copula. Language, 45, 715–762.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Labov, W. (1971). The notion of ‘system’ in creole studies. In Hymes, D. (Ed.), Pidginization and creolization of languages (pp. 447–472). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Larsen-Freeman, D. (1975). The acquisition of grammatical morphemes by adult ESL students. TESOL Quarterly, 9, 409–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, C. N., & Thompson, S. A. (1987). Chinese. In Comrie, B. (Ed.), The world's major languages (pp. 811–833). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mühlhäusler, P. (1981). The development of the category of number in Tok Pisin. In Muysken, P. (Ed.), Generative studies in creole languages (pp. 35–84). Dordrecht, Holland: Foris.Google Scholar
Nemser, W. (1971). Approximative systems of foreign language learners. IRAL, 9, 115–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pintzuk, S. (1986). VARBRUL programs for the IBM personal computer and for the VAX [Computer programs]. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania, Department of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Poplack, S. (1980a). Deletion and disambiguation in Puerto Rican Spanish. Language, 56, 371–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poplack, S. (1980b.) The notion of the plural in Puerto Rican Spanish: Competing constraints on (s) deletion. In Labov, W. (Ed.), Locating language in time and space (pp. 55–67). New York: Academic.Google Scholar
Poplack, S. (1981). Mortal phonemes as plural morphemes. In Sankoff, D. & Cedergren, H. (Eds.), Variation omnibus (pp. 59–71). Edmonton, Alberta: Linguistic Research.Google Scholar
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. (1972). A grammar of contemporary English. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Rousseau, P., & Sankoff, D. (1978). Advances in variable rule methodology. In Sankoff, D. (Ed.), Linguistic variation: Models and methods (pp. 57–65). New York: Academic.Google Scholar
Sabino, R. (1983). Plural marking in the Virgin Islands English Creole in the St. Thomas-St. John community. Penn Review of Linguistics, 7, 3–11.Google Scholar
Sankoff, D., & Labov, W. (1979). On the uses of variable rules. Language in Society, 8, 189–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sato, C. J. (1985). Task variation in interlanguage phonology. In Gass, S. M. & Madden, C. G. (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 181–196). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Schmidt, R. W. (1987). Sociolinguistic variation and language transfer in phonology. In Ioup, G. & Weinberger, S. H. (Eds.), Interlanguage phonology: The acquisition of a second language system (pp. 365–377). Cambridge, MA: Newbury House. (Reprinted from Working Papers in Bilingualism, 1977, 12, 79–95)Google Scholar
Schumann, J. H. (1978). The pidginization process: A model for second language acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Selinker, L. (1969). Language transfer. General Linguistics, 9, 67–92.Google Scholar
Selinker, L. (1972). Interlanguage. IRAL, 10, 219–231.Google Scholar
Selinker, L., & Douglas, D. (1985). Wrestling with ‘context’ in interlanguage theory. Applied Linguistics, 6, 190–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tarone, E. E. (1985). Variability in interlanguage use: A study of style-shifting in morphology and syntax. Language Learning, 35, 373–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thakerar, J. N., Giles, H., & Cheshire, J. (1982). Psychological and linguistic parameters of speech accommodation theory. In Fraser, C. & Scherer, K. R. (Eds.), Advances in the social psychology of language (pp. 205–255). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Weiner, E. J., & Labov, W. (1983). Constraints on the agentless passive. Journal of Linguistics, 19, 29–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Young, R. (1986). The acquisition of a verbal repertoire in a second language. Penn Wording Papers in Educational Linguistics, 2(1), 85–119. (Available from University of Pennsylvania, Graduate School of Education, Philadelphia, PA)Google Scholar
Zuengler, J. (1985). Phonological aspects of input in NS-NNS interactions. In Gass, S. M. & Madden, C. G. (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 197–229). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Zwicky, A. M. (1975). Settling on an underlying form: The English inflectional endings. In Cohen, D. & Wirth, J. R. (Eds.), Testing linguistic hypotheses (pp. 129–185). Washington, DC: Hemisphere.Google Scholar