Some functionalist research concentrates in more detail on particular areas of meaning and the ways language learners at different stages of develop-ment attempt to express them. We have already noted the interest of func-tionalist researchers in the means used by learners to talk about time (temporality, e.g. Dietrich et al.3 1995). Others have also studied the means used by learners to talk about place (spatial location, e.g. Becker and Carroll, 1997), to maintain coherent reference in discourse (e.g. Broeder, 1995) and to to express modality (such as degrees of certainty or uncer-tainty (e.g. Giacalone Ramat, 1995; Salsbury and Bardovi-Harlig, 2000).
To exemplify this research this section looks more closely at the develop-ment of 'time talk', as described in a recent review by Bardovi-Harlig (2000).
Drawing on the European Science Foundation and other studies, Bardovi-Harlig concludes that interlanguage users of any language will pass through three successive stages when talking about time:
• Pragmatic stage - to express time, learners rely on: scaffolding by inter-locutors; inference from the context; contrasting events; chronological order.
• Lexical stage - to express time, learners rely on: temporal and locative adverbials (e.g. now, then, here, there); connectives (e.g. and, and then);
calendric references (e.g. May, Saturday); verb lexis (e.g. start, finish).
• Morphological stage - learners start to use verb morphology (tense and aspect) as indicators of temporality.
Examples of the use of pragmatic and/or lexical means to express tem-porality are plentiful in the European Science Foundation data quoted earlier in this chapter, as well as in the conversations of Sato with Thanh andTai (see Section 5.3.4).The following example, a diary entry written by Hamad, a first-language Arabic learner of English as a second language, is particularly rich in adverbials (highlighted with italics):
Deat [Date]: Jan 27
It was Saturday is the wecknd I welk up at 10:00 o'clock morning I tulk my shoer and after that I go to my frind when I pe there they sead they well go to the mool [shopping mall] and I go with they we go around in the mool around 2 hours than we go to the movei in the Selima [cinema] in the mool to wach-ing a good movei after the movei we go Back to our Dorms we seat to gather in our Friend room we talking to gather and after that every Budy go to he's room me too I go back to my room that all.
(Bardovi-Harlig 2000, p. 58) Indeed, some researchers have argued that the pragmatic or lexical stages are sufficient for most everyday communicative purposes, and many stud-ies of uninstructed learners show that they may never progress beyond the lexical stage (Dietrich et al, 1995).
Learners are considered by Bardovi-Harlig and others to have entered the morphological stage once examples of tense-aspect morphology are noted in their interlanguage utterances. This is called the 'emergence' of morphology, and does not necessarily mean that these forms are used accu-rately and consistently. Bardovi-Harlig (2000, pp. 111-13) lists four 'gen-eral principles' that have been found in studies of the emergence of verb morphology:
1. The acquisition of morphology is slow and gradual, and uninflected verb forms 'linger' in interlanguage.
2. Form often precedes function, that is, verb inflections may appear which to begin with do not seem to contrast in meaning or in function with other verb forms used at the same time.
3. Irregular morphology precedes regular morphology (e.g. irregular past forms such as English went, came appear ahead of forms such as jumped, elided).
4. Learners notice and use verbal suffixes to denote 'past' meanings, ahead of other means such as auxiliary verbs (e.g. use of a V-e form in place of the auxiliary plus past participle which make up the French passe compose).
Bardovi-Harlig also claims that tense and aspect morphology 'emerges' in interlanguage in regular sequences, which remain the same for particular target second languages, regardless of learners' first language background.
Thus, for example, the order of emergence:
Past —> past progressive -> present perfect —> pluperfect
was observed for second language English by Bardovi-Harlig (2000, pp.
169-) in a study including learners with Spanish, Korean and Japanese as first languages, and was also reported by Klein (1995) for first-language Italian learners of English. Finally, Bardovi-Harlig concludes that both observational and experimental studies show beneficial effects for instruc-tion on the learning of second language tense and aspect morphology.
However, her survey agrees with many others, in concluding that instruc-tion is most effective when combined with positive motivainstruc-tion and 'input through L2 contact' (Bardovi-Harlig, 2000, p. 405); instructed learners still go through the same pragmatic and lexical stages as uninstructed learners, and acquire tense and aspect morphology in similar orders, though they may make faster progress and eventually reach a more advanced stage, with more extensive and accurate use of verb morphology.
5.6 The aspect hypothesis
One interesting developmental suggestion which links the learning of sec-ond language meaning and form is the so-called 'aspect hypothesis' (Andersen and Shirai, 1994). While grammatical aspect is commonly expressed through verb morphology (e.g. the English -ing form which marks progressive aspect), verbs can also be classified as possessing inher-ent lexical aspect, as part of their core meaning. In a well-known classifica-tion, Vendler (1967) proposed that verbs can be grouped into four types, according to their inherent aspect (examples after Salaberry, 1999):
• Statives (e.g. to be, to have, to want).
• Activities (e.g. to run, to zvalk, to breathe).
• Accomplishments (e.g. to write a novel, to build a house).
• Achievements (e.g. to notice someone, to realize something, to reach the summit).
The aspect hypothesis claims that 'first and second language learners will initially be influenced by the inherent semantic aspect of verbs or predicates in the acquisition of tense and aspect markers associated with or affixed to these verbs' (Anderson and Shirai, 1994, p. 133). Thus for example, Andersen (1991) has suggested that second language learners of Spanish will start to use the imperfect tense with verbs from the stative group, and will first of all use the preterite tense with achievement verbs.
The Aspect hypothesis has proved somewhat controversial, and Dietrich et al (1995) say that the data from the naturalistic learners of the European Science Foundation project do not support it. However, numerous studies of classroom second language learners have produced results in line with the hypothesis. Thus, for example, Bayley (1994) found that Chinese first language learners of English as a second language were more likely to mark verbs for past tense if their meaning included an end point (e.g. transitive sing a song) than if it did not (e.g. intransitive sing). Salaberry (1999) found that post-beginner English first language learners of Spanish as a second language doing a narrative task were more likely to mark stative verbs as imperfect and accomplishment or achievement verbs as preterite, in line with Andersen's suggestions. Only the most advanced learners in Salaberry's study began to use verb tense more flexibly, to mark the speaker's viewpoint on the events making up the narrative.
5.7 Evaluation
What are the most important contributions of the functionalist tradition to our understanding of SLL?
5.7.1 The scope and achievements of the functionalist perspective
The functionalist tradition is well established in SLL theory. Its fundamen-tal claim is that language development is driven by pragmatic communica-tive needs, and that the formal resources of language are elaborated in order to express more complex patterns of meaning. Functionalist research typically takes the form of naturalistic case studies of individuals or groups of learners; most often these have been adults in the early stages of second language learning, who are acquiring the language in informal environ-ments rather than in the classroom.These studies have offered us numerous rich accounts of both the rate and route of naturalistic second language learning, at least in the early stages.
Functionalist reseachers vary, however, in the scope of their enquiries.
Some have adopted a 'patch' approach, studying the use and evolution of selected second language forms, or the development of a second language within a semantic domain such as 'time' or 'space'. On the other hand, the European Science Foundation team has made quite strong claims for their proposed second language 'basic variety', which represents a proto-grammar stage that all learners should pass through. Below, we evaluate their contributions to understandings of the nature of interlanguage, the learning process and the language learner.
5.72 Functionalism and the nature of interlanguage
Rispoli (1999) argues that first language acquisition researchers have as yet made little systematic use of distinctively functionalist linguistic theory;
instead, 'functionalist' first language acquisition researchers have simply given semantic and pragmatic considerations some role in the acquisition of (some parts of) formal linguistic systems. As we have seen, second language researchers have made some use of Givon's suggestions regarding informa-tion structure, in order to describe central underlying patterns in interlan-guage utterances. Apart from this, Rispoli's comments arguably apply also to second language functionalist work such as the aspect hypothesis. The consensus among the European Science Foundation researchers, Bardovi-Harlig and others, that 'form precedes function', that is, that morphological forms appear in interlanguage ahead of any recognizable functional con-trast in their use, reflects implicit acceptance of the at least partly autonomous nature of formal systems.
Descriptively, however, the functionalist tradition has added consider-ably to our understanding of interlanguage communication while the for-mal system is still in an underdeveloped state, and has made interesting suggestions about the interactions between formal and functional develop-ment. Functionalist researchers have demonstrated the wide range of devices (lexical and pragmatic as well as formal) which interlanguage users deploy in order to convey meaning. For example, the expanded treatment by functionalist researchers of the semantic notion of temporality has taken the study of how interlanguage users locate their utterances in time, well beyond a search for formal sequences in verb morphology development.
The aspect hypothesis has suggested how learners may use overlaps in word meaning and morphological form as an entry point into various formal sub-systems of their target language.
Functionalist researchers have also drawn our attention to the issue of textual or discourse organization in learner language, and offered
consider-able evidence in support of the view that early learner varieties rely heavily on parataxis rather than on syntax in order to structure and express both individual propositions and inter-propositional relationships.
A continuing limitation on functionalists' characterization of interlan-guage is that most attention has been paid to the earliest stages of develop-ment (the 'basic variety'). The interlanguage of more advanced learners has been explored thoroughly in some areas only (e.g. the development of ref-erence to past time and the use of past-tense verb morphology surveyed by Bardovi-Harlig, 2000). The range of target languages investigated is also not very wide (most research has been done with Germanic or Romance languages) and the extent of influence of learners' first languages on post-basic varieties is not clear.
5.73 Functionalism on language learning and development
Functionalist researchers insist universally on the gradual nature of IL development and syntacticization, with learners working actively on only part of the system at any one time, but with possible reorganizational con-sequences that may spread widely through the system. At the same time, most functionalist researchers have so far adopted a 'patch' approach, working on overall utterance structure when studying the basic variety, or alternatively exploring development within a range of semantic and formal sub-systems (temporality, modality, space, pronouns, articles).
Linkages across these different sub-systems are not always clear, though functionalist researchers argue consistently for a multi-level approach to the analysis of IL data. Some valuable work has been done, for example demonstrating the role of intonation and prosody in demarcating utter-ances, or demonstrating how paratactic constructions mirror and prefigure their syntactic equivalents. The lexical level has also been studied, from the point of view of its relationship with the development of both morphology and syntax (e.g. Sato's speculations about the potential significance of items such as think and know for the development of subordination).
While their contribution at a descriptive level has been very strong and varied, however, the contribution of functionalist studies to the explanation of IL development has so far been limited. It has been clearly shown how effective a basic variety can be in meeting immediate communicative needs.
But it is less clearly established that communicative need is the prime dri-ver for syntacticization and development beyond the basic variety. As we have seen, even the European Science Foundation team wavers on this point, ultimately preferring 'social' explanations for morphological development. Sato articulates a number of reasons, grounded in close
examination of the interactions in which her child learners were engaged, why communicative need might not be particularly effective in promoting syntactic development. Her suggestion, that the literacy demands of formal schooling might be more powerful, can be connected with Bardovi-Harlig's claims that instructed learners make more progress with the acquisition of tense and aspect morphology. But no distinctively functionalist explanation has been advanced, as to why instruction should be particularly beneficial for morphological development.
Functionalist research has also concentrated largely on the analysis of learners' interlanguage outpuf, and has paid relatively less attention to input and even to interaction. There are some exceptions, mostly among those trying to provide functionalist explanations for the acquisition of tense and aspect morphology. Sato pays some attention to the formal fea-tures of input received by her subjects during data collection sessions, for example noting the rarity and lack of phonological saliency in interlocutor speech of regular past tense forms. Bardovi-Harlig notes the frequency in input of adverbial forms, and appeals to input processing theory (VanPatten, 2002; see Chapter 6) in suggesting that learners may therefore not need to notice or process verb morphology in the language that they hear. Conversely, Giacalone Ramat (1997) appeals to principles of fre-quency, salience and obligatoriness of morphology, in explaining different acquisitional patterns in cross-language studies. Andersen makes similar claims in respect to frequency patterns in input, when commenting on the acquisitional patterns associated with the aspect hypothesis.
As far as the European Science Foundation research is concerned, how-ever, the main research team paid little attention to the details of input and interaction in which their subjects were engaged. An ethnographically ori-ented sub-group did provide very detailed commentaries on native speaker-non-native speaker interaction (Bremer et al, 1993, 1996); how-ever, their detailed commentaries on native speaker-non-native speaker interaction are concerned primarily with the immediate achievement of understanding, as we will see more fully below. They have not paid detailed or systematic attention to the emergence within interaction of new linguis-tic forms.
5.74 Functionalism on the language learner
Much functionalist research has concerned itself with naturalistic adult learners, acquiring a socially dominant T L in the workplace and other non-domestic settings. As we have seen, the driving forces promoting second language acquisition for such learners have been explained by the
European Science Foundation team as: (a) immediate communicative need and (b) a longer-term and more variable desire for social integration with the target language community. Functionalists have conducted extensive comparative cross-language research, but have been mainly interested in the discovery of universal rather than language-specific characteristics of the learning process, for example the emergence of the basic variety, or the development from pragmatic to lexical and morphosyntactic means of expression.
Functionalist research on the emergence of second language morphology has, however, concerned itself with instructed learners (e.g. the various studies reported in Bardovi-Harlig, 2000).These learners are seen as more successful in acquiring second language morphology, though functionalists generally agree that instruction works by increasing the rate of acquisition and pushing at least some learners further along the acquisitional route, rather than by altering the route of acquisition in any significant way. It is not however very obvious from a functionalist perspective why classroom learners should be more successful than uninstructed learners, as class-room communicative needs are often very reduced or indirect. It is possible that classroom discourse forces second language learners to attend to the communicative value of formal items such as tense and aspect morphology, which are non-salient or communicatively redundant in everyday dis-course. But this idea has not been followed up systematically by any of the research groups whose work has been surveyed in this chapter. We will meet this proposal again in our survey of input and interaction theories in Chapter 6.