Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-qlrfm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-10T13:30:10.125Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Wave Model of Linguistic Change and the Naturalness of Interlanguage

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 November 2008

Helmut Zobl
Helmut Zobl
Affiliation:
Université de Moncton
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper investigates the question of whether the Wave Model of linguistic change can furnish a valid idealization for the patterning of variation in interlanguage systems and, thereby, a scale for the determination of their degree of naturalness. Using cross-sectional data from 162 French-speaking adult learners, the paper analyzes the variability in the evolution of the English possessive determiners HIS and HER. The main findings are as follows:

1. The Wave Model furnishes a valid idealization for acquisitional change.

2. The developmental continuum reveals that L2, acquisition appears to involve a greater scope of variability. Change may be initiated in a more marked environment at a point when the rule change process is not yet fully completed in the less marked environment. Nonetheless, the proportion of learners showing variable application of the mature rule in only one environment at a time as opposed to those with variable application in both is more than 2:1.

3. Less natural systems evidence rule blockage and/or compartmentalization of the marked environment; rule conflict between noncontiguous parts of the rule, and violation of markedness constraints.

4. Premature adoption of gender marking on the possessive determiners or, more generally, failure to approach the target language rule with an unmarked, initial hypothesis is one important source of unnaturalness in rule variability.

The data analysis leads up to a number of other issues in interlanguage research such as inter-learner variation, the ‘acquisition-learning’ distinction, and the relationship between the Simple Codes Hypothesis and unsuccessful L2, acquisition.

Type
Articles
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 6 , Issue 2 , Spring 1984 , pp. 160 - 185
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1984

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adjemian, C. 1976. On the nature of interlanguage systems. Language Learning 26. 297–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andersen, R. 1978. An implicational model for second language research. Language Learning 28.221–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bailey, C.-J. 1973a. The patterning of language variation. Varieties of present-day English, ed. Bailey, R.W. and Robinson, J.L., 156–89. New York and London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Bailey, C.-J.. 1973b. Variation and linguistic theory. Washington: Center for Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar
Bailey, C.-J.. 1977. Linguistic change, naturalness, mixture, and structural principles. Papiere zur Linguistik 16.6–73.Google Scholar
Bialystok, E. 1978. A theoretical model of second language learning. Language Learning 28.69–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bickerton, D. 1971. Inherent variability and variable rules. Foundations of Language 7.457–92.Google Scholar
Bickerton, D.. 1972. The structure of polylectal grammars. Georgetown Monograph Series No. 25: Sociolinguistics, ed. by Shuy, R.W., 17–42. Washington: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Bickerton, D.. 1973. The nature of a creole continuum. Language 49.640–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bickerton, D.. 1975. Dynamics of a creole system. London and New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Comrie, B. 1981. Language universals and linguistic typology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Corder, S.P. 1977. Simple codes and the source of the second language learner's initial heuristic hypothesis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 1.1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dickerson, W. 1976. The psycholinguistic unity of language learning and language change. Language Learning 26.215–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eckman, F. 1981. On the naturalness of interlanguage phonological rules. Language Learning 31.195–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fasold, R. 1973. The concept of ‘earlier—later’: more or less correct. New ways of analyzing variation in English, ed. by Bailey, C.-J. and Shuy, R.W., 23–43. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Fasold, R.. 1975. The Bailey Wave Model: a dynamic quantitative paradigm. Analyzing variation in language, ed. by Fasold, R. and Shuy, R.W., 27–58. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Givon, T. 1970. The resolution of gender conflicts in Bantu conjunction: when syntax and semantics clash. Papers from the Sixth Regional Meeting, 256–261. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Greenberg, J. 1963. Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements. Universals of languages, ed. by Greenberg, J., 73–113. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Gruber, J. 1976. Lexical structures in syntax and semantics. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Hatch, E. and Wagner-Gough., J. 1976. Explaining sequence and variation in second language acquisition. Papers in second language acquisition (Language Learning Special Issue No. 4), ed. by H.D. Brown, 39–58.Google Scholar
Hyltenstam, K. 1978. A framework for the study of interlanguage continua. Working Papers No. 18, Department of General Linguistics, Lund University.Google Scholar
Kellerman, E. 1978. Transfer and non-transfer: where are we now? Studies in Second Language Acquisition 2.37–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, R. 1969. Historical linguistics and generative grammar. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, P. 1965. Phonological change. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, MIT.Google Scholar
Klein, W. and Dittmar, N.. 1979. Developing grammars: the acquisition of German syntax by foreign workers. Berlin and New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krashen, S. 1977. Some issues relating to the Monitor Model. On TESOL '77: Teaching and learning English as a second language, ed. by Brown, H.D., Yorio, C. and Crymes, R., 144–58. Washington, D.C.: TESOLGoogle Scholar
Krashen, S.. 1978. The Monitor Model for second language acquisition. Second language acquisition and foreign language teaching, ed. by Gingras, R., 1–26. Arlington: Center for Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar
Krashen, S.. 1979. A response to McLaughlin ‘The Monitor Model: some methodological considerations’. Language Learning 29.151–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McLaughlin, B. 1978. The Monitor Model: some methodological considerations. Language Learning 28.309–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meisel, J., Clahsen, H. and Pienemann, M.. 1981. On determining developmental stages in natural second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 3.109–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mühlhäuser, P. 1980. Structural expansion and the process of creolization. Theoretical orientations in creole studies, ed. by Valdman, A. and Highfleld, A., 19–55. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Rickford, J. 1979. Variation in a creole continuum: quantitative and implicational approaches. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Ritchie, W. 1978. The right-roof constraint in an adult-acquired language. Second language acquisition research: issues and implications, ed. by Ritchie, W., 33–63. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Schumann, J. 1978. The acculturation model for second language acquisition. Second language acquisition and foreign language teaching, ed. by Gingras, R., 27–50. Arlington: Center for Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar
Selinker, L. 1972. Interlanguage. IRAL 10.209–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sharwood-Smith, M. 1981. Consciousness-raising and the second language learner. Applied Linguistics 2.159–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strick, G. 1980. A hypothesis for semantic development in a second language. Language Learning 30.155–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tarone, E., Frauenfelder, U. and Selinker, L.. 1976. Systematicity/variability and stability/instability in interlanguage systems. Papers in second language acquisition (Language Learning Special Issue No. 4), ed. by H.D. Brown, 93–134.Google Scholar
Ultan, R. 1978. Toward a typology of substantival possession. Universals of human language, vol. 4: syntax, ed. by Greenberg, J., 11–49. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Wode, H. 1981. Learning a second language. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Zobi, H. 1983. Grammars in search of input and intake. Paper presented at the 10th University of Michigan Conference on Applied Linguistics—Input in Second Language Acquisition,Ann Arbor,October 28–30, 1983.Google Scholar