Interlanguage Variation in the Acquisition of Past Tense in the Writing of Iranian EFL Learners Interlanguages are both systematic

and variable. They are systematic in the sense that certain patterns appear in the production of all learners in specific stages. Learner language is also variable since learners in one stage make use of different possible and impossible forms. This statement seems paradoxical. How is it possible for a system to be both systematic and variable? This can be the case if we consider the fact that the variability we are talking about is itself systematic. Many researchers have tried to explain the variability found in interlanguages by examining the linguistic, social, and psychological context in which the learners are performing. However, we should not become obsessed with systematic variation and ignore the free variation. A few researchers (e.g. Rod Ellis, 1999) have tried to explain the free variation and to find a theoretical basis for it. The aim of this paper is to explain variability in the acquisition of English past tense by Persian-speaking learners.

Introduction One very important point is that variation was originally studied in first languages. It is now clear that native speakers of a given language use different forms to express the same meaning. It has also been found that this variability is systematic; that is selecting one form and not the other depends both on the age, social class and gender of the speaker and also on other contextual factors. Many researchers (e.g. Labov, 1966) have tried to explain this variability. Review of the related literature Definition of Interlanguage: Brown (2000) believes that the era of contrastive analysis gave way to an era of error analysis, with its guiding concept of interlanguage, now also widely known as learner language. Today, researchers have come to view second language acquisition as a process of testing hypothesis from different sources of knowledge (not only the first language). Interlanguage is an L2 learners multi-competence (Cook, 1996). It has its own grammar, its own lexicon, its own phonetic rules, etc. (Selinker, 1972). According to Labov (1969) it is

subject to systematic variation, as any natural language. The L2 target is the standard variety of the language that the learning community adopts. Different terms are used to refer to learners second language systems. Selinker (1972) calls it interlanguage. This term is used to show that the structure of interlanguages in neither similar to that of first language nor that of the second language. Corder uses the term idiosyncratic dialect because in his opinion every learner has their own interlanguages. For the aim of studying and analyzing interlanguages, scholars mainly focus on the production (speech and writing) of learners since the production is more observable than comprehension (Brown, 2000). This emphasis in turn, led to the field of error analysis. Researchers started to think of different sources for learners errors including: interlingual transfer, intralingual transfer, and context of learning.

Theories of Interlanguage Variation: There is no common agreement on how much of the variability is explainable. But many researchers have tried to explain several variations that occur in learner languages. Because of this fact, various theories have appeared with regard to interlanguage variation. Individual learner factors are the main source for explaining interlanguage variation. These factors include: gender, age, motivation, personality, and etc. Contextual variety is also observed in the production of learners. Ellis (1985) divides contextual variety into two type; namely, situational context and linguistic context. Situational context causes variation when learners use different L2 forms in different situations. Learner language can also vary according to the linguistic context when the same error appears in one type of sentence but not in the other. Ellis (1985) stated that a full account of contextual variety needs to take both situational and linguistic context into account. Tarone (1983) classified contextual variety into four categories: linguistic context, psychological processing factors, social context, and language function. So, both Ellis and Tarone try to explain the variability on the basis of context. One common technique used for the study of interlanguages is planning. Skehan (1996) argues that planning is used to create different contexts for language tasks, enabling researchers to observe IL variation and probe into L2 learners cognitive processes.

Variation: Many factors influence learner production and their interlanguage system. As a result learners produce different forms depending on external variables. Gass and Selinker (2008) believe that interlanguages exhibit more variation than do native languages. Before the production

of target-like forms, we observe variation. A classic example is by Rod Ellis (1984) who found that an 11 year-old boy freely alternated between the following two forms: (9-3) No look my card. (9-4) Dont look my card. In order to study variation, we should focus on on the correlations of social facts and linguistic forms, the influence of linguistic forms on one another, and the place of variation within the study of language change (Preston, 2002, p. 141). One type of variation is systematic variation and it happens when two sounds or forms vary depending on the context. Several researchers have relied on the linguistic context to explain systematic variation. Dickerson (1975) studied the phonological variation by Japanese learners of English. He observed that the sound [r] was used more before a low vowel than before a mid vowel. So the phonetic environment causes different pronunciations for English /r/. Sato (1984) also found that two Vietnamese children reduce consonant clusters in English depending on whether the cluster was at the beginning of the cluster or at the end. Morphology and syntax are also affected by the linguistic context. Young (1991) studied the use of plural marking by Chinese learners of English. He found that there was variation conditioned by the phonological environment (by both the preceding and following segment). Social context is also used for the purpose of investigating interlanguage variation. Social factors relating to the native language is studies by various researchers (e.g. Schmidt, 1977; Beebe, 1980). Social context can also be related to interlocutor, task type, and conversational topic (e.g. Labov, 1970; Tarone, 1983). But, learning a language is not just learning its lexical items and proper word order. One needs to learn how to use those words in the second language. According to Gass and Selinker (2008) interlanguage pragmatics deals with both the acquisition and use of second language pragmatic knowledge. Interlanguage pragmatics studies mainly focus on speech acts. Being unable to learn pragmatic rules of the second language will lead to misunderstanding and misinterpretation.

Studies of Interlanguage Variation in the Acquisition of Past Tense: Since the focus of this paper is the variation in the acquisition of past tense, in this part we review some of the studies done in this field. Generally, the development of past tense is indicated by the frequency of past tense morphology. Indeed, inflectional endings are very difficult to learn and as Schwartz (1993) states, highest amount of variability and lowest degree of success. Schmidt and Forta (1986) found that for an English native speaker who

is learning Portuguese, the choice of tense caused more problems . . . than person, number or conjugation class. Schmit (1992) argues that rule application is sensitive to particular lexical items that are frequent and well practiced. It is not out of place to discuss the lexical aspect hypothesis, because it considers the role of lexical semantics in past tense acquisition. Salaberry (2000) explains this hypothesis as follows: The lexical aspect hypothesis (Andersen, 1986, 1991, 1994) predicts that events that have an inherent end point (e.g. to crash, to break, to reach the peak, to notice something) will be the first types of verbs marked with past tense, atelic events (processes that have no inherent end point) will be marked next, whereas stative verbs (e.g. to live, to love, to be) will be the last types of verbs marked as such in past time contexts. Some researchers have found evidence for the lexical aspect hypothesis. For example, Robison (1995) showed that the use of past tense across lexical aspectual classes was mostly restricted to the marking of telic events. Other studies consider a role for the distinction between regular and irregular morphology in the development of past tense. Kumf (1984) states that, the base form is regularly used when expressing foreground events. The only noticeable exception is the use of forms such as met, bought, and told - the irregular past forms. Some believe that reduction happens to regular verbs more than irregular verbs (Wolfram, 1985). He stated that, in the incipient stages, the processes may converge, with the grammatical process taking precedence; while in the latter stages the phonological process may take on increased significance. The European Science Foundation Project also has conducted a research in this regard with the following conclusion: Past tense formation is very simple for the regular forms, and irregular past is often a nightmare. Still, the learners of our study, tend to overlook the simple rules of the former and to start with the complexities of the latter, whatever the semantic category of the verb (Klein et al., 1995) Other researchers have focused on classroom learners of English as a second language. Ellis (1987) studied the use of English past tense verbs in a classroom setting. After showing them a series of pictures, he asked the students first to write an account of the story and then to give an oral narrative of the story. Ellis (1987) came to the conclusion that style-shifting across the different tasks occurred most commonly for regular past tense forms, less so for past copula, and hardly at all with irregular past tense forms. This means that attention to

form affects some forms (regular forms), but not others (irregular forms). Salaberrys (2000) paper showed that the lexical aspect hypothesis may not give a good picture of past tense development in early stages. Salaberry argued that some other cognitive constraints may be responsible for the explanation of variations in past tense acquisition (p. 150).

Variation in Second Language Acquisition: Some kinds of variation are internal to the learners. Studies that deal with this kind of variation focus on linguistic form in the developing grammars of second language learners. . Dickerson (1975) found that a learner's interlanguage phonology varies systematically both in response to the degree of 'formality' of the elicitation task and to varying phonological environments. Three prominent figures in this field are Labov, Tarone, and Ellis who each bases his/her work on the previous one. For instance, Tarone (1976) claimed that variation takes place along a style-shifting continuum with attention to form being the key determinant. Ellis (1985) extended the work of Tarone by stating that not all variations are systematic; rather, there are free (non-systematic) variations too. Gass et al. (1989) have a collection of papers that extensively deals with the topic of variation in SLA. Tarone in this collection moves beyond the linguistic form and considers the cause of interlanguage variation to be the external and social forces. On the whole, his point is that a theory of interlanguage variation should be empirically verifiable and comprehensive. Such a theory should also address longitudinal processes of SLA. Rod Ellis, in his paper, observes that different researchers consider different levels of importance for variability. He further states that several interrelated factors cause variation. Ellis aims to provide a framework for variation. He distinguishes two broad types of variation; namely, free and systematic variation. He names several sources of variation in each category. He also considers a role for planning time.

Free Variation: As it was mentioned above, some researchers maintain that there is also free variation. The best example is Rod Ellis (1999) who argued that item learning is an indicator of free variation. He observed that free variation constitutes an important aspect of L2 learning, which cannot be ignored if we are to explain how learners ultimately develop their interlanguages. Other researchers reject this view and believe that free variation is not real. It is free only because we cannot find the sources that explain its systematicity. Ellis defends his position by stating that free variation is explainable by current theories of SL acquisition

and that there is a methodological need to accept that free variation exists if a rigorous search for systematicity has failed to reveal any (p. 476). However, Young (1988) believes that free variation will only arise under certain very specific conditions.

Explaining Interlanguage Variation: A review of studies on interlanguage variation reveals that different researchers have looked at the issue from a unique perspective and have provided various explanations for it. Gass and Selinker (2008) report several studies and provide the following explanations: 1. Interlanguage co-varies with linguistic context. Dickerson (1975) considers the learners interlanguage as a system of variable rules. She found that Japanese learners pronunciation of (r) varies with linguistic context. 2. Interlanguage variation is an indication of learners stage of acquisition. Gotbonton (1978) proposed a gradual diffusion model for the investigation of patterned phonetic variability. 3. Learners style shift in the L2 in the same way they style shift in the L1. Beebe (1980) studied sociolinguistic variation and style shifting in second language acquisition. She studied Thai learners pronunciation of (r) in English and found that the frequency of pronunciation of (r) varied depending on whether learners were doing a conversation or reading a list aloud. 4. Interlanguage co-varies with the task that learners are performing. Tarone (1985) conducted a study of style-shifting in morphology and syntax. She found that whether learners were doing a grammar test, having an interview, or giving a narrative affected the forms they produced (i.e. their interlanguages). 5. There are multiple factors that influence interlanguage variation. Gass and Selinker (2008) observe that every time a speaker makes a choice of a word, a phrase, a structure, a pronunciation it influences or even determines other choices. When we add to these purely linguistic considerations the interactions between language and context, the complexity becomes very great. To work out the influences on some particular choice, we must do multivariate analysis.

Influence of Context: Theories of interlanguage variation have tried to find out why learners speak or write the way they do. Some researchers have investigated the role context in interlanguage variation. It has been found that such contexts as conversation, narrative, reading, etc. affect the production of

L2 learners. Other studies have shown that word recognition is influenced by many lexical factors such as text frequency, subject familiarity, age of acquisition. For example, WadeWoolley (1999) claims that, the phonological system of the native language constrains the L2 learners ability to perceive and produce the sounds of the target language (p. 451). Thompson and Brown (2001) studied the production of the English /I/ in obligatory contexts by a Spanish-speaking L2 learner of English to understand the effect of context on accurate production of phonemes. Their main focus was textual formality and degrees of contextualization. They came to the conclusion that the participant was most accurate in her production of /I/ in the more vernacular register, i.e. narration, than in the more formal register, i.e. minimal pair naming. One reason they state for this fact is that in the vernacular form, contextual cues may have influenced the production of learners. It is suggested that learners in their attempts to produce L2 sounds, connect them to the nearest sound in the L1. Flege (1991) found that adult beginners produce L2 vowels according to the closest L1 vowel. So we can expect several changes in the production of a new sound as it gradually becomes native-like. Some researchers consider a role for L1 as a factor influencing word reading. Wade-Woolley (1999) studies the process of transferring orthography and phonology from L1 to L2. Finally, she came to the following conclusion: Language-specific processing parameters may be set in the process of L1 literacy acquisition, and that, depending on the degree of similarity between L1 and L2 orthographies, even highly fluent L2 speakers may continue to employ less-thanoptimal underlying strategies in the process of L2 word recognition (p. 450). Avoidance is a factor that can make data analyzing difficult and causes problems for researchers. This factor is problematic when we collect naturally occurring data. One solution is to ask students to produce language at different levels of formality (Flege, 2001). Another relevant issue is the relationship between proficiency and formality. Adamson (2002) has proposed an explanation by distinguishing between vertical and horizontal continua in interlanguage. According to his theory, learners of a second language must progress along the vertical continuum, or axis, before being able to progress along the horizontal continuum or axis. The vertical axis is the level of proficiency and the horizontal axis represents the degree of formality. Thompson and Brown (2001) state the following rational for the theory: an L2 learner who struggles to master basic language skills, i.e., grammar, aural comprehension, oral expression, will be less likely to demonstrate a sensitivity to more subtle aspects of language, i.e., phonological differences of formality.

The issue of transfer has also been a concern for some researchers in the field of interlanguage variation. James is one of those who have tried to find the relationship between interlanguage variation and learning transfer. His main argument is that IL performance is learning transfer; so, variation in interlanguage performance may in some cases be related to constraints on learning transfer. It becomes apparent that studies on learning transfer can contribute a lot to researches on IL variation.

Adamson (2009) devotes one chapter of his book to a research done by Berlin and Adamson on The Acquisition of English Irregular Past Tense by Chinese-speaking Children. First, they make a discussion of constraints on past tense marking (phonological, semantic, discourse). Their study was a longitudinal one and the subjects were four boys and four girls who were native speakers of Chinese and their age ranged from 3 to 11. Data collection had taken place during three years and subjects were asked to retell stories that they had just seen in the form of cartoons. Berlin and Adamson came to interesting results. First, they rejected the principle of saliency. Since this principle had been supported in other studies on adults, their rational was that perhaps children tend to learn irregular past tense verbs individually while adults tend to learn them in classes. Second, it was found that learners tend to use past tense markers more frequently when they are expressing old information. They suggested that [their] subjects were more likely to express background information when they had the linguistic resources to do so and could therefore be more accurate. Finally, they stated that their subjects rely on telicity (or perfective aspect) as a cue to pastness in the earlier stages of acquisition and to abandon this strategy as they become more proficient.

Rahimpour (?) attributes the variation in the performance of L2 learners to the type of task they perform. He investigated 20 L2 learners and came to the conclusion that learner's interlanguage is systematically variable and this variability is attributed to the task types performed by the learners. Although we have a lot of research done on interlanguage variation, only recently researchers have realized that such researches can have many implications for SLA and teaching methodology. Bayley (2005) in his article argues that variationist linguistics has had relatively little influence on SLA research. He attributes this neglect to a couple of reasons. One is the dominance of formal models in SLA. Another is the reduction of aims of sociolinguistics to socially sensitive pragmatics and the last reason is some

misunderstandings that SLA researchers have about concepts of variationist linguistics. Bayley starts sorting out the misunderstandings (e.g. explaining the variation by reference to a single co-occurring contextual factor.) and elaborates on the advantages that variationist linguistics can have for SLA research (e.g. in understanding language transfer, the nature of the target language, etc.).

Some researchers have focused on topic-related language use variation. They have investigated the effect of topic familiarity on the IL variation. For instance, Shona (1994) conducted a research by interviewing four subjects on major field and neutral topics. The control group in Shonas study was not interviewed on major field topics. The research subjects showed enhanced performance and the results supported the discourse domain hypothesis.

Wang (2009) in an attempt to set a SL developmental index proposes a combination of interlanguage theory and emergentism. He states that we shouldnt search for an either-or solution; rather we need to think of different views as a continuum. Some scholars adhere to general rules only and some adhere to individual differences. Wang (2009) summarizes his proposal as the following: It may be difficult to find a global index of L2 development, but we can consider about it in a less ambitious way, i.e., some objective measures that can reflect learners development in fluency, complexity and accuracy as well as discriminate a specific population will be regarded as valid to depict the status quo of this group. When such a set of objective measures has been found, individual performances can be gauged in terms of fluency, complexity and accuracy so as to see in which dimension he or she is weak or strong. Only in this way can L2 learners development be caught both holistically and analytically. (p. 34)

Why narratives? The need to study written narratives as opposed to oral narratives: The data collected in the current study is in the form of narratives that subjects are asked to write after they are presented with a picture. There are a few rationales behind this emphasis on the one hand on narratives and on the other hand on writing. Different languages use different conventions in writing stories and as Kang (2005) states, narrative is a culture- and language-sensitive genre that varies from culture to culture and from discourse community to discourse community. The fact is that, each language uses different techniques and resources

to achieve cohesion. If learners face any difficulty, they may rely on L1 strategies. Kang (2005) complains that most of the cross-linguistic and L2 studies on narrative discourse have been limited to oral narrative discourse. Little attention has been given to written narrative discourse. Interestingly, it seems that writing may be a better indicator of L2 learners performance because writing is a more deliberate and editable process (Chafe, 1985). So, writing can reflect a learners linguistic and cultural knowledge in L2 more accurately than spontaneous oral discourse. Ellis (1987) found that use of formal linguistic features, such as control over tense, in extended discourse have shown that there was highest use of appropriate linguistic forms in planned writing and least in unplanned oral narratives.

Relation to the Current Study: In general, interlanguage is defined as the interim grammars constructed by the secondlanguage learners on their way to the target language (McLaughlin, 1987). Various researches done on interlanguage have looked at this phenomenon from a different perspective and most of them have tried to find systematic patterns in the production of second language learners. In the view of the above discussion, the impetus for the current research comes from a few sources. One is the fact that few studies have been conducted on the Iranian SL learners interlanguages. Another reason is the limited research done on the topic of variability in the writing of learners in general. Finally, the review of the related literature showed that studies on interlanguage can have many implications for SLA research (e.g. a better understanding of language) and this is especially true for variation in written discourse (since it is better representative of L2 competence). So, it is hoped that the present study will enhance our knowledge of interlanguage in particular and language processing in general.

References