English for Children
Seminar Paper by Helen Doron - part 1
In a 1985 paper entitled Sources of Variability in Interlanguage, Rod Ellis describes interlanguage (IL) as a series of variable systems. He claims that horizontal variability (the IL that a learner has at a specific point in time) is of two main types: systematic and non-systematic. Vertical variability is stages of development that the learner passes through in time. Ellis writes:
Systematic variability can be described by relating the occurrence of specific formal features to either situational or contextual factors. However, it is the non-systematic variation that is the key to understanding the vertical dimension of interlanguage. Interlanguage involves at least three essential processes:
- the internalization of new linguistic forms
- the progressive organization of form-function relationships
- the elimination of redundant forms.
Ellis' article uses a longitudinal study of 'J' (an 11-year old Portuguese ESL student); the study focuses on the acquisition of the negative form of the present simple. J has two forms: a) No + V and b) Don't + V. At first form a) is very dominant. Over a six month period, form b) becomes more dominant.
Ellis refers to 4 paradigms that have been advanced to explain interlanguage variability and tries to explain J's variability within their framework. The first three paradigms are attribute to Tarone (1983); the fourth to Selinker and Douglas.
i) The homogeneous competence paradigm
This sees variability as a performance characteristic. According to this, Ellis interprets the data to mean that J has one rule for negative utterances - this rule is his competence. However, his performance shows variations of this rule. Ellis concludes that this is neither helpful nor convincing: which form should be treated as deviant? It does not explain the data.
ii) The capability paradigm
This is based on Labov's theory of systematic stylistic variation. In this case, the learner's competence (or 'capability') is made up of a continuum of styles, ranging from the careful to the vernacular. The degree of attention given to the utterance is a matter of the social context. According to this, Ellis interprets the data to mean that J has two rules for negative utterances: the 'no' + V rule belongs to the vernacular, and the 'don't' + V rule belongs to the more careful style. However, as the social circumstances were the same in both cases of utterances and as J was in both cases focused on meaning, the explanation is not convincing.
- English for Children - Seminar2 - part 1
- English for Children - Seminar2 - part 2
- English for Children - Seminar2 - part 3
- English for Children - Seminar2 - part 4