Discourse Aspects of Interlanguage

The study of learner discourse in SLA has been informed by two rather different goals. On the other hand there have been attempts to discover how L2 learners acquire the ‘rules’ of discourse that inform nstive-speaker language use. This work is analogous to the work on acquisition of grammar and is essentially descriptive in nature. On the other hand, a number of reasearchers have sought to show how interaction shapes interlanguage develpment (i.e. how discource influences the kinds of errors learners make and the developmental orders and sequences thay pass through). This work is explanatory and will be our major concern here. First, however, we will briefly consider some of the descriptive work on learner discourse.

     1.       Acquiring discourse rules

There are rules or, at least, regularities in the ways in which native speakers hold conversations. In American English, for example, compliment responses are usually quite elaborate, involving some attempt on the part of the speaker to play down the compliment by making some unfavourable comment. For example :

A : I like your sweater.

B : It’s so old. My sister bought it for me in Italy some time ago.

However, L2 learners behave differently. Sometimes they fail to respond to a compliment at all. At other times thay produce bare responses {for example, ‘Thank you’}.

The acquisition of discourse rules, like the acquisition of grammatical rules, is systematic, reflecting both distinct types of errors and developmental sequences. More work is needed to demonstrate which aspects are universal and which are language specific as it is already clear that many aspects oflearner discourse are influenced by the rules of discourse in the learner’s L1. We will later examine how learners transfer discourse features from their L1 to the L2.

     2.       The role of input and interaction in L2 acquisition

If learner discourse can be shown to have special properties it is possible that these contribute to acquisition in some way. It does indeed have special properties. Just as caretakers modify the way they speak to children learning their L1, so do native speakers modify their speech when communicating with learners. These modifications are evident in both input and interaction. Input modifications have been investigated through the study of foreigner talk, the language that native speakers use when addressing non-active speakers. Two types of foreigner talk can be identified – ungrammatical and grammatical.

Ungrammatical foreigner talk is socially marked. It often implies a lack of respect on the part of the native speaker and can be resented by learners. Ungrammatical foreigner talk is characterized by the deletion of certain grammatical features such as copula be, modal verbs (for example, can and must) and articles, the use of the base form of the verb in place of the past tense form, and the use of special constructions such as ‘no + verb’.

Grammatical foreigner talk is the norm. Various types of modification of baseline talk (i.e. the kind of talk native speakers address to other native speakers) can be identified. First, grammatical foreigner talk is delivered at a slower pace. Second, the input is simplified. Third, grammatical foreigner talk is sometimes regularized. Fourth, foreigner talk sometimes consists of elaborated language use.

     3.       The role of output in L2 acquisition

After all, discourse supplies learners with the opportunity to produce language as well as hear it. Here we find conflicting opinions. Krashen argues that ‘speaking is the result of acquisition not its cause’. He claims that the only way learners can learn from their output is by treating it as auto-input. In effect, Krashen is refuting the cherised belief of many teachers that languages are learned by practising them. In contrast, Merrill Swain has argued that comprehensible output also plays a part in L2 acquisition. She suggests a number of specific ways in which learners can learn from their own output. Output can serve a consciousness-raising function by helping learners to notice gaps in their interlanguages. That is, by trying to speak or write in the L2 they realize that they lack the grammatical knowledge of some feature that is important for what they want to say. Second, output helps learners to test hypotheses. They can try out a rule and see whether it leads to successfu; communication or whether it elicits negative feedback. Third, learners sometime talk about their own output, identifying problems with it and discussing ways in which they can be put right.

Social Aspects of Interlanguage

Three rather different approaches to incoporating  a social angle on the study of L2 acquisition can be identified. The first views interlanguage as consisting of different ‘style’ which learners call upon under different conditions of language use. The second concerns how social factors determine the input that learners use to construct their interlanguage. The third considers how the social identities that learners negotiate in their interactions with native speakers shape their opportunities to speak and, thereby, to learn an L2.

     1.       Interlanguage as a stylistic continuum

Elaine Tarone argues that learners develop a capability for using the L2 and that this underlies ‘all regular language behavior’. This capability, which constitutes ‘an abstract linguistic system’, is comprised of a number of different ‘styles’ which learners access in accordance with a variety of factors. At one end of the continuum is the careful style, evident when learners are consciously attending to their choice of linguistic forms, as when they feel the need to be ‘correct’. At the onther end of the continuum is the vernacular style, evident when learners are making spontaneous choices of linguistic form, as is likely in free conversation.

Another theory that also draws on the idea of stylistic variation but which is more obviously social is Howard Giles’s accomodation theory. This seeks to explain how a learner’s social group influences the course of L2 acquisition. For Giles the key idea is that of ‘social accommodation’. He suggests that when people interact with aech other they either try to make their speech similar to that of their addressee in order to emphasize social cohesiveness (a process of convergence) or to make it different in order to emphasize their social distinctiveness (a process of divergence). According to Giles’s theory, then, social factors influence interlanguage development via the impact they have on the attitudes that determine the kinds of language use learners engage in.

     2.       The acculturation model of L2 acquisition

A similar perspective on the role of social factors in L2 acquisition can be found in John Schumann’s acculturation model. This model, which has been highly influential, is built around the metaphor of ‘distance’. Schumann proposed that pidginization in L2 acquisition results when learners fail to acculurate to the target-language group, that is, when they are unable or unwilling to adapt to a new culture.

The main reason for learners failing to acculturate is social distance. This concerns the extent to which individual learners become members of a target-language group and therefore achieve contact with them. A learner’s social distance is determined by a number of factors. In such cases, he suggests psychological distance becomes important and identifies a further set of psychological factors, such as language shock and motivation, to account for this.

As presented by Schumann, social factors determine the amount of contact with the L2 individual learners experience and thereby how successful they are in learning. There are two problems with such a model. First, it fails to acknowledge that factors like ‘integration pattern’ and ‘attitude’ are not fixed and static but, potentially, variable and dynamic, fluctuating in accordance with the learner’s changing social experiences. Second, it fails to acknowledge that learners are not just subject to social conditions but can also become the subject of them; they can help to construct the social context of their own learning. It is this notion that we will now explore.

     3.       Social identify and investment in L2 learning

The notion of social identity is central to the theory Peirce advances. She argues that language learners have complex social identities that can only be understood in terms of the power relations that shape social structures. A learner’s social identity is, according to Peirce, ‘multiple and contardictory’. Learning is successful when learners are able to summon up or construct an identity that enables them to impose their right to be heard and thus become the subject of the discourse. This requires investment, something learners will only make if they believe their efforts will increase the value of their ‘cultural capital’. Peirce’s social theory of L2 acquisition affords a different set of metaphors. L2 acquisition involves a ‘struggle’ and ‘investment’.