ppt,variability in interlanguage,宋柳

2.2 non-systematic variability
2.non-systematic variability
• a. free variability • b. performance variability
2. Variability in language use
1.systematic variability 2.non-systematic variablity
2.1 Systematic varibility
The status of the variability in the interlanguage use of native speakers has been viewed very differently by linguists, depending on whether they approach it in terms of a homogenous competence model or a heterogeneous competence model.
Another way of accounting for variability is by means of implicational analysis(Decamp1971;Bickerton1975) This approach involves viewing language as an intersecting set of idiolects.
2.1 Systematic varibility
In a homogenous competence model all variability is classified as non-systematic variability. That is to say, the language user is credited with a system of rules(his “competence”) which is homogeneous. This underlies all his efforts at performance, and the fact that he does not always manifest the ideal system in the way he speaks or writes is dismissed as irrelevant to an understanding of the ideal system.(Chomsky1965)
2.1 Systematic variability
“Observer’s paradox” by Labov Good data requires systematic observation(as stated by axiom4), but axiom5 prevents access to the user’s vernacular style, which, because it is the most systematic style, is the principal goal of linguistic enquiry.
2.1 Systematic varibility
A heterogeneous competence model posits that although some of the variability observed is the result of relatively unpredictable factors to do with the state of the mind or emotions of the user, other variability, particularly that deriving from the user’s knowledge of how to use language appropriately, is systematic, and more importantly, constitutes an integral part of the user’s communicative competence(Hymes 1971)
2.1 Systematic variability
Furthermore, the presence of one feature in an idiolect entails the co-occurrence of one or more other features.(hierarchically ordered) i.e. 1. I am I’m(both employ) 2. I’m(might not necessarily use “I am ” ) language users shift along this continuum of styles, varying the choice of the idiolect in accordance with social factors.(heterogeneous competence model)
2.1 Systematic varibility
Labov(1970)—heterogeneous competence model—5 axioms about how to study language use.(P.77)
1. All speakers posse several “styles”. 2. Styles can be ranged along a single dimension, measured by the amount of attention paid to speech. 3. The vernacular is the style in which minimum attention is given to monitoring speech. It provides “the most systematic data” for linguistic study. 4. It is not possible to tap the vernacular style of the user by systematic observation of how he performs in a formal context.(experiment) 5. The only way to obtain good data on the speech of a language user is through systematic observation.
1.Introduction: types of variability
Variability in interlanguage 1.systematic variability
• a. contextual variability linguistic context situational context • b. individual variability (i.e. product of individual learner factors such as age, motivation, personality)
2.1 Systematic variability
Labov’s studies (spread according to the amount of attention paid by the speakers to their own speech) 1.Casual speech 2.Careful speech 3.Reading 4.Word lists 5.Minimal pairs
2.1 Systematic variability
「θ」或「ð」as in “thing”& “they” 」 」
Findings: More attention given, the more approachable to the target language.
2.1 Systematic variability
2.1 Systematic variability
The presupposition of the analysis:
Any one speaker will have access to a number of such idiolects, but is unlikely to be capable of the full range. But within a language community, the full range of idiolects will be observed. The competence of the community can be viewed as a continuum. At one end of the continuum is an idiolect(usually the standard dialect) which contains all of a number of specified features, while at the other end is an idiolect which contains few or even none of these features.
2.1 Systematic varibility
In other words, the user’s ability to perform needs to be understood in terms of communicative rather than linguistic competence. i.e. When , where and with whom to perform . So, in a heterogeneous competence model, stylistic variability is viewed as an integral part of competence, not performance.