Early phase: 1970s to 1980s

Through the late 1960s and early 1970s, the field of SLA research developed in parallel to the monolingual studies of variationist sociolinguistics. Both fields investigated speakers’ underlying systems, with a specific focus on

understanding whether linguistic variation was random or systematic (Regan, 2013:276). Early variationist studies, such as Labov’s (1972a) study of African American Vernacular English in New York, were often interested in looking at non-standard, marginalised varieties. In parallel, a number of early SLA studies that examine variability in learner language were also interested in marginalised speakers, often focusing on migrants moving from the

developing to the developed world (Huebner, 1979; Wolfram, 1985). However, despite the two fields having areas of common interest, only a few

researchers made connections between the two fields before the 1980s (e.g. (Dickerson, 1975; Tarone, 1979). It was not until the late 1980s that SLA research began to recognise and take advantage of the insights that variationist methods of data collection and analysis could provide (Bayley, 2005:2).

Since the field of SLA began, researchers have been concerned with the systematicity of learners’ language (Larsen-Freeman, 2000:166). Lado’s

Chapter 3: Variation in a new language (1957) Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis (CAH) was key in pushing the early field of SLA forward and putting language learners’ L1 at the forefront of investigation. The CAH was intended to form the basis of a system whereby teachers could predict learner errors and areas of difficulty. According to the CAH, differences in speech between a learner’s actual performance and the target L2 forms are attributed to ‘interference’ from learners’ L1s. The CAH has been stated in two versions (Wardhaugh, 1970:124): a strong version that was largely rejected, and a weak form that still influences SLA today. The strong form of the CAH predicts that by comparing the distribution of

phonemes and allophones in the L1 and L2, those features of L2 phonology that are similar to those of a speaker’s L1 will be easy to acquire. The CAH also predicts that the greatest difficulty in acquisition will occur when a contrast between two or more allophones in the L1 is found to be a contrast between two phonemes in the L2 (Lado, 1957:2).

This strong form of the CAH remained highly popular throughout the 1960s, but by the late 1970s, a lack of empirical evidence supporting the hypothesis called its definitive nature into question (see Dickerson, 1975; Nemser, 1971). Many of the errors that the CAH predicted were not observed in learner language. In addition, teachers and researchers reported that many learners would make the same errors even when they had different L1s. It was therefore asserted that the hypothesis could not be used to predict all learner errors, but was of more use as a retrospective explanation of errors within learner language. In fact, Lado (1957) himself did not claim his theory to be all encompassing and had already called for further research to be done. When the claims of the strong form of the CAH failed to materialise when tested against empirical data, scholars realised that there were many kinds of error that could not be predicted or explained by contrastive analysis alone (Sridhar, 1980:223).

As the 20th Century progressed, the weaker form of the hypothesis was adopted. In this form, the CAH serves as a tool to retrospectively explain observed learner phonological difficulties, rather than predict or presuppose as the stronger form does. This weaker version continues to play a central role in the study of learner language, although it has been criticised by some for being merely ‘heuristic’ (Eckman, 1977:316).

Following the rise and decline of the CAH through the 1960s and 1970s, a great deal of attention was paid to the study of learner language. SLA studies frequently focus on the initial stages of the acquisition process. During this time, it is observed that learners develop an ‘approximate system’ which shares features of both the learner’s first language and the target language but is fully explainable by neither (Selinker, 1972). Selinker (1972) termed this learner language ‘interlanguage’, and although other names have been used to describe learner language (e.g. approximative system (Nemser, 1971) and idiosyncratic dialect (Corder, 1971)), it is the term ‘interlanguage’ that has endured.

Before the 1980s, very few SLA studies implemented variationist methods in their study of interlanguage variability. One early example is Dickerson’s (1975) research that examined the pronunciation of /l/ and /r/ by Japanese learners of English in a range of phonological environments. Dickerson stated explicitly that she intended to extend the variationist model to the SLA context, and, in doing so, she found that the learners’

interlanguage did indeed consist of a system of variable rules influenced by phonetic environment and style.

Gradually more researchers began to take advantage of variationist methodologies. Results began to attest to the fact that variation in

interlanguage is not random, as was previously thought, but highly systematic and constrained by multiple linguistic and social factors, just as in a speaker’s own language (see Adamson & Kovac, 1981; Beebe, 1980; Beebe &

Zuengler, 1983; Berdan, 1996; Dickerson, 1975; Tarone, 1982; Wolfram, 1985). Prior to this, there was a tendency in much SLA research to attribute learners’ variation in interlanguage to a single co-occurring contextual factor. Beebe (1977), Ellis (1987), Selinker & Douglas (1985), and Tarone (1985) attribute observed variation to: ethnicity of the interlocutor; amount of planning time available; discourse topic; and attention to speech respectively.

‘Remarkably, each of these studies found evidence from interlanguage

variation in support of the researchers’ theoretical positions’ (Bayley, 2005:3). However, none of those authors examined the possibility that the real cause of variation may be a combination of multiple contextual influences, and that those factors may affect different groups of learners differently.

Chapter 3: Variation in a new language In 1981, Adamson & Kovac published what is thought to be the first use of Varbrul (variable rule analysis) in SLA. Varbrul, developed by Labov and colleagues, is a set of multivariate statistical analysis methods originally designed for the analysis of phonological variation within monolingual

variationist research. Methods of multivariate analysis that are frequently used in quantitative variationist sociolinguistics, such as VARBRUL, allow

researchers to model the simultaneous effect of multiple linguistic and social factors that may impact on speech. The introduction of this type of quantitative analyses into SLA marked a turning point.

Previous SLA research that expected to find a single overarching

explanation for speaker variation presents a vastly oversimplified picture given the complexities of communication. What is key to the current study, and indeed to research in the variationist tradition in general, is to examine what relative strength many different factors have when associated with speaker variation (Bayley, 2005:3). Although it is never possible to report all social, physical and linguistic features, it is important to endeavour to report and include in the model of variation as many features as possible, such as the interlocutors, physical surroundings, topic of discussion, features of the social and physical context, as well as features of the linguistic context of the

variable form (Tarone, 1979).

Following Adamson & Kovac’s (1981) study, it became increasingly common for research that looks at variation in interlanguage to use Labovian techniques of data collection and analysis, such as the sociolinguistic

interview and Varbrul. The findings of such research repeatedly confirmed that L2 variation is systematic and constrained by both linguistic and social factors, and in doing so demonstrated that quantitative multivariate analysis is a powerful tool in the analysis of highly variable L2 speech data (Regan, 2013:277).