Sll Variability in Second Language

¶ … Sll

Variability in Second Language Acquisition -- Contrasting Explanations and Universal Implications

A field born out of the merging of two sciences, sociolinguistics is concerned with neither phonemics nor phonology but instead with how these more technical aspects of language function in society. For Holmes (2001), language change, the variations in language patterns, and the association between language and attitudes are all a part of sociolinguistics. Although it has a great impact on a variety of linguistic sub-units, sociolinguistics and second language learning are closely intertwined. Indeed, Mitchell and Myles (2004) argue that "it is clear that some sustained programmes of empirical research are now developing in which sociolinguistic ideas are viewed as much more central to the understanding of SLL" (p.223). Variability in second language use is one of the "major themes" in sociolinguistics, and its application to second language learners is especially significant (Mitchell and Myles, 2004, p.224). Indeed, while variability both describes language the language patterns of children's speech and the patterns associated with the second language learner, an examination into the connection between variability and second language learners and variability allows the reader to make certain assumptions and theories regarding language and its social function. Through a discussion of the nature of variability, internal variability, external variability, quantifying second language variability, and acquiring sociolinguistic variation in interlangauge, linguists can make the claim that interlanguage variability is at least partially motivated by social choices on the part of the second language learner.

Mitchell and Myles (2004) define variability as "the fact that second language learners commonly produce different versions of particular constructions, more or less close to the target language, within a short time span" (p.224). In other words, the authors define variability as the use of two different forms in creating the same expression by second language learners. Because the example given by Mitchell and Myles (2004) is especially prudent, its reproduction will add dimension to this definition. The authors detail a second language learner, Alberto, in his pursuit of English as the target language. Alberto demonstrates variability in his use of the constructions no "no plus verb" and "don't plus verb" to express negation. Mitchell and Myles (2004) expand their definition of variability through this example, stating that "the point to note…is that although one pattern was more common ['no plus verb'], two patterns were clearly in use simultaneously, by a single learner, over an extend period of time" (p. 224). In addition to claiming that variability allows for linguists' ability to define the state of having acquired a language subjectively, Mitchell and Myles (2004) call the phenomenon as "a striking and distinctive" feature of the spoken second language.

Because variability has designated for itself such a prominent place in second language use, linguists, sociologists, and anthropologists have asked why this is the case. At first, scholars paid little attention to the phenomenon of variability, believing it to be wholly explainable by the overarching intrusion of the learner's first language. In other words, the glaring example of variability in Japanese speakers learning a target language of English, the confusion of / l / and / r/, was quickly attributed to the fact that the phonology of such sounds are not different to these speakers (Romaine, 2003, p. 410). However, Romaine (2003) quickly noted that other factors explained the variation phenomenon, and created a typology that seeks to explain the reasons for this phenomenon's prominence, arguing that these supposed causes fall into two camps -- internal and external, where internal potential causes consist of a mixture of both "linguistic and sociolinguistic elements" and external rationales are "entirely sociolinguistic in origin" (Mitchell and Myles, 2004, p.225). Further, Romaine (2003) defines internal variability as having to do with linguistic factors, such as phonetic environment (p. 411). Mitchell and Myles (2004) give summarize Romaine's three examples of internal variability -- linguistic markedness, language change, universal development constraints, and Lt transfer. One of these examples is strictly linguistic in nature, while an argument can be made that the other two potential causes verge on being lumped in the external camp. Markedness, a purely linguistic characteristic, suggests that variability occurs when speakers produce "less target-like performance" in situations when languages more easily form another result. Language change suggests that variability may occur as a result of "a linguistic snapshot" of an evolving language (Mitchell and Myers, 2004, p.226). Building on this rationalization, universal developmental constraints notices the similarities between the first steps in second language acquisition and the formation of pidgin languages. Because of these similarities, some scholars suggest that "there may be universal constraints, such as markedness, driving the progression of linguistic systems from more simple to more complex" (Romaine, 2003, p.417). Thus, the potential internal causes of variation have primarily linguistic implications, such a certain universal, linguistic constraints applicable to all languages and potentially rising out of Chomsky's universal grammar theories.

While some may argue that causes such as language constraints have social roots, as well, Romaine (2003) has crafted an entire list of social influences on, or causes for, variability. Mitchell and Myers (2004) summarize them as style and task-based variation and gender-based variation. The first explanation for variability argues that variability may be explained by the fact that all speakers tend to alter their speech based on the situation, audience, etc. Gender-based variation, on the other hand, holds that men and women have different ways of articulating themselves through language. Because women typically speaking in a more formal manner, this may account for the variation of forms in second language learners (p.227). Clearly, both internal and external factors can be reasonably considered plausible explanations for the universal phenomenon of language variability. It is the degree to which each explains variability that must be considered when determining how large a part social choices play in the acquisition of a second language.

In order to make this determination, sociolinguistics have adopted a qualitative approach drawn from a long history of productive research. On the wings of Labov's 1970s-era study of variability in everyday speech, the VARBRUL program was born. Labov's tests in the 1970s studied certain spoken, and often pronunciation, features of language, and suggested that certain pronunciation features of language could, indeed, be correlated with social situations. Using statistical logical regression, VARBRUL is a much more scientifically sound method of measuring the correlation between variability and linguistic or social factors. According to Mitchell and Myers (2004), the VARBRUL program is significantly advanced because it "can handle simultaneously a number of different contextual factors that may influence learner production, and can also handle interactions between them" (Mitchell and Myers, 2004, p. 231). Predicting the probability with which certain demonstrations of variability are accounted for by specific linguistic or sociological factors, sociolinguists that have applied the program to the issue of variation among second language learners, achieving results that suggest that both linguistic and social variables play a role in the phenomenon of variation (Mitchell and Myers, 2004, p. 232-233). However, Mitchell and Myers (2004) write that the study also suggests the tests shows that "sociolinguistic factors play a relatively restricted role" in language variation. (Mitchell and Myers, 2004, p.233).

But this does not necessarily mean that sociolinguists can completely discount the roles that social variants and social perceptions play in the second language learner's acquisition of the target language. Indeed, Mitchell and Myers (2004) list recent studies of the French language evidence for acquiring sociolinguistic variation in interlanguage. In these studies, they found that three distinct social variants of the language existed, each with their own social interpretation. The studies found that students in the classroom environment were more likely to pick up certain variants and that differences in variants were evident for students in differing gender and socioeconomic groups. Mitchell and Myers (2004) write that these the study suggests that "even students who encounter the second language mainly in school are acquiring a repertoire of variants, including some awareness of their social meaning" (p. 234).