sociolingo to sla approach

8/3/2019 Sociolingo to Sla Approach

1/12

Sociolinguistic Approaches to

Second Language AcquisitionResearch19972007ELAINE TARONE619 Heller HallCARLAUniversity of MinnesotaMinneapolis, MN 55455Email: [email protected]

This article discusses sociolinguistically oriented research on second language acquisition(SLA) in the decade since Firth and Wagner (1997). Over the last 10 years, substantial progresshas been made in developing a model of the sociolinguistic processes that inform second lan-guage acquisition. This model is supported by empirical evidence on the relationship betweensocial context and second language use and acquisition, which shows that learners secondlanguage (L2) input and processing of L2 input in social settings are socially mediated, thatsocial and linguistic context affect linguistic use, choice, and development, and that learnersintentionally assert social identities through their L2 in communicating in social contexts. Astrength of sociolinguistically oriented SLA research is its strong focus on linguistic outcomes,tracking the impact of contextual factors in producing those outcomes. Preston (2000, 2002)and Fasold and Preston (2006) provided a central sociolinguistic framework to integrate re-

search on the interaction of social factors and cognitive processes in producing interlanguage,which is a variable linguistic system.

IN 1997, FIRTH AND WAGNER ARGUED THATsecond language acquisition (SLA) research wastoo dominated by psycholinguistic thinking andcalled for research that made sense in the so-cially embedded experiences of second language(L2) speakers in their own worlds. In this article,I will review the construction of SLA theory inthe decade following Firth and Wagner, focusingon theory that takes a sociolinguistic orientation1

to SLA. It will be argued that a sociolinguisticapproach should be central to socially orientedSLA research. A sociolinguistic approach goes along way toward establishing the balance betweenthe cognitive and the social that Firth and Wag-ner called for. However, a sociolinguistic approachalso adds something that Firth and Wagners ap-proach risks losinga focus on the linguistic out-comes of the process. Sociolinguistic approachesallow us to study the impact of social factors on

The Modern Language Journal, 91, Focus Issue, (2007)0026-7902/07/837848 $1.50/0C2007 The Modern Language Journal

cognitive processes as these result in the acquisi-tion of a new linguistic system.

Sociolinguistics is a well-established branch oflinguistics that focuses on the study of the impactof society, including the impact of social context,on the way language is used. A sociolinguistic ap-proach to SLA is one that studies the relationshipbetween such social contextual variables as inter-locutor, topic, or task and the formal features oflearner language or interlanguage2 (IL) produc-tion. There is a long record of research on socialcauses of IL variation dating back to the beginningof IL study (see Selinker & Douglas, 1985; Tarone,1979, 1988, 2000; Tarone & Parrish, 1988), thoughit is interesting that Firth and Wagner (1997) didnot choose to cite that strand of SLA research intheir article. An important aspect of sociolinguis-tic SLA work examines the interdependence be-tween the social contexts in which IL is used and

the cognitive processes of the learner that affectlearner language variation and change, leading toacquisition. The sociolinguistic strand of researchon SLA has been marginalized by some (cf. Gregg,


2/12

838 The Modern Language Journal 91 (2007)

1990) and has not been cited by other researchers,but nevertheless has generated a considerable andgrowing body of data on the relationship betweensocial context and L2 use and acquisition. In thenext section, I will briefly summarize sociolinguis-tic work on SLA prior to 1997, and then I will

describe in more detail the growth of this fieldof study in the decade since Firth and Wagnersarticle appeared.

SOCIOLINGUISTIC APPROACHES TOSECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITIONBEFORE 1997

In the decades preceding Firth and Wagners(1997) article, sociolinguistically oriented SLA re-search (work on IL variation) explored the waysin which the linguistic structure of learner lan-guage was systematically affected by specific as-pects of social context. The results of this research(which I summarized in Tarone, 1988) clearlyshowed that specific phonological, morphologi-cal, and syntactic variables in the linguistic sys-tem of IL could change markedly in relation tosocial contextual changes such as shifts in inter-locutor, task, or topic. Some of the earliest ofthese studies of learner language include thoseby Dickerson (1975), Beebe (1980), and Taroneand Parrish (1988). This research showed, for ex-

ample, that L2 phonology shifted in response tochanges in interlocutor or task. Variationist re-search also showed that L2 learners produced asignificantly more fluent and accurate IL in somesocial contexts thanin others. International teach-ing assistants, for example, were shown to be morefluent and grammatical in lecturing on their aca-demic field than when talking about an everydaytopic like favorite foods or bicycling (Selinker &Douglas, 1985). Preston (1989) showed that theo-retical work in SLA was deeply related to ongoing

research in sociolinguistics.A major problem for researchers in this area,

from the beginning, has been sociocognitive, thatis, how to understand the psycholinguistic under-pinnings of this variable speech performance. InSLA research, the problem may be phrased this

way: Given that learner IL use is systematicallyvariable, how do we characterize what L2 learn-ers know at any given time? If we can characterizethat knowledge, how do we describe the longitudi-nal process of SLA? Several attempts were made to

address the problem (Beebe & Giles, 1984; Beebe& Zuengler, 1983; R. Ellis, 1985; Gregg, 1990; Pre-ston, 1989, 1996; Tarone, 1983, 1990). Beebe andGiles (1984) proposed a theoretical model pre-dicting that learners linguistic systems (their ILs)

would converge in form to resemble the formsproduced by some interlocutors or diverge fromthose produced by other interlocutors, depend-ing on issues of learner identity. Selinker and Dou-glas (1985) suggested that adult L2 learners set uptheir own internally created discourse domains,

based on their perceptions of social settings thatcall for particular language forms and structures.Because of this, learners produce ILs with differ-ent linguistic characteristics when speaking in dif-ferent discourse domains. Key cognitive processessuch as fossilization were claimed to be moreprominent for a given learner in one discoursedomain than in another. Failure to acquire an L2

variety needed for a particular discourse domainhad even been shown to cause learners to switchto their first language (L1). Tarone and Swain(1995) claimed that adolescents in French immer-sion classroom settings needed a vernacular vari-ety of the L2 that their adult teachers could notprovide in such settings, and so switched to theirL1 English vernacular when talking to each otherfor social purposes. One such learner, Suzannah,put it this way:

when . . .[we] get older. . . .we start speaking in a waythat they dont teach us, in French, how to speak. So Idont know if its slang or just the way kids speak. . . . Ispeak differently to my friends than I do to myparents.

Its almost a whole different language, and. . .

theydont teach us how to speak [French] that way.(p. 172)

Thus, IL and the cognitive processes underlyingits development were viewed by some SLA re-searchers as profoundly affected by social factors.

Nevertheless, Gregg (1990) found it impossibleto reconcile the generative distinction betweencompetence and performance with my (Tarone,1983) and R. Elliss (1985) proposition that L2learners linguistic knowledge was variable and

probabilistic. In generative linguistics, compe-tence is categorical, not variable, so Gregg founduntenable the idea that variable rules3 might havepsychological reality of any kind in the mind ofthe learner. He asked: Do we really want to claimthat a speaker knows, whether consciously or un-consciously, the probabilities for the productionof a specific form? (p. 372). In Greggs view,

variation in grammatical production in differ-ent social contexts could only be a characteristicof language performance; variation had nothing

to do with language knowledge, or competence.Many of the researchers who reacted negatively toFirth and Wagners (1997) ideas held similar viewsabout the distinction between competence andperformance.


3/12

Elaine Tarone 839

Such views about the absolute separation of per-formance from competence were not and are notuniversally held. Indeed, the year before Firth and

Wagners (1997) article was published, assump-tions about the distinction between competenceand performance for L2 learners were questioned

in a collection of articles edited by Brown, Malmk- jaer, and Williams (1996). The linguistic schol-ars in this volume proposed different models oflearner knowledge that all assumed integrationbetween competence and performance. Amongthem, V. J. Cook (1996) proposed that in SLA,the target for acquisition is multicompetence, not anative-speaker competence that is impossible bydefinition:

The goal of L2 acquisition should be seen as some-thing other than monolingual native competence.

The term multi-competence has been introducedto cover knowledge of more than one language in thesame mind. . . . There is no assumption that this knowl-edge corresponds to a monolingual native speakersin either L1 or L2; this is a matter for empirical re-search. . . . The starting point should be what L2 learn-ers are like in their own right rather than how theyfail to reach standards set by people that they are notby definition. (p. 64)

So as we see, even as Firth and Wagner called fora broader theory of SLA, that is, one that would

move beyond a narrow focus on cognition aloneto explore the impact of social context on theprocess of SLA, several strands of SLA research

were doing just that.

19972007: DEVELOPMENT OF ASOCIOLINGUISTIC THEORY OF SECONDLANGUAGE ACQUISITION

Longs Response to Firth and Wagner

One of the strongest and most immediate re-actions to Firth and Wagner (1997) came fromLong (1997, 1998), whose view was that the soleobject of study in SLA research should be the cog-nitive processes used by thelearner to acquire L2s.He argued that social context has no impact onthe learners cognitive processes, and therefore,that issues of social context fall outside the scopeof SLA theory. The following is one of his moreprovocative statements on this position:

Remove a learner from the social setting, and the L2

grammar does not change or disappear. Change thesocial settingaltogether, e.g., from street to classroom,or from a foreign to a second language environment,and, as far as we know, the way the learner acquiresdoes not change much either, as suggested, e.g., by a

comparison of error types, developmental sequences,processing constraints, and other aspects of the acqui-sition process in and out of classrooms. (Long, 1998,p. 93)

Many theories of L2 acquisition restrict their

scope to a greater or lesser extent to decontextual-ized learner cognition in the way Long describes.Such theories model the cognitive processes inthe brain of the L2 learner as it uses input inthe L2 to create a grammar. The different theo-ries use slightly different metaphors to describethe learners mental processes. For writers tak-ing a generative orientation, like Gregg (1990),competence and performance are completely dif-ferent; variation in response to social context isa feature of performance, but does not apply tolearner knowledge, or competence. Longs state-ment seems to present a view of the mind as equiv-alent to a computer that processes L2 input, in-corporates it into the grammar, and then uses it togenerate output. Just as my laptop computer is un-affected by social context and processes my inputin exactly the same way no matter what the socialsetting, whether I am in my office or in an air-port, so the human brain, in Longs view, shouldbe unaffected by social setting.

But is the human mind as impervious to socialcontext as a computer? A substantial body of re-

search shows that it is not. The L2 learners mind,unlike my laptop computer, processes L2 data dif-ferently in response to different social variables;Longs (1997, 1998) assertions are based on theo-retical presuppositions, not on empirical data. Inmy 2000 article, I described in some detail em-pirical evidence that directly contradicted Longscontention that cognitive processes of SLA are un-affected by social setting. The evidence showed,for example, that social setting affects whetherL2 learners receive adjusted input or corrective

feedback (Bondevik, 1996; Varonis & Gass, 1985),so adjusted input is not universally provided, asLong claimed. L2 learners draw on different lan-guages and aspects of their L2 knowledge in differ-ent social settings, as shown statistically by Broner(2001) in a VARBRUL analysis of fifth graders

very fine-grained and nuanced shifts in choice oflanguage variety in response to specific interlocu-tors. Finally, and most crucially, social setting af-fects such cognitive factors as L2 learners process-ing of corrective feedback (Kormos, 1999) and

their sequences of L2 development (Tarone &Liu, 1995). Some of this evidence, first presentedin my (2000) article, and additional evidence re-

viewed by Lafford (2006), will be summarizedin the next section of this article in relation to


4/12


developments in a sociolinguistic theory of SLAduring the past decade.

A Sociolinguistic Model of Second LanguageAcquisition

There is currently a good deal of interest inmodels and theories of SLA that explicitly takesocial context into account.4 These models andtheories view the learner as a social being whosecognitive processing of the L2 is affected by so-cial interactions and social relationships with oth-ers, including those others who provide L2 inputand corrective feedback. One such theory is Vy-gotskyian, as reviewed by Swain and Deters (thisissue). This theory has focused on the dynam-ics of social scaffolding that support the produc-tion of L2 lexical items or morphosyntactic items.However, this approach has not documented thelong-term acquisition of L2 linguistic structures.

Another model is V. J. Cooks (2006a, b) notionof multicompetence. Although it has generateda good deal of interest (e.g., Herdina & Jessner,2002; Pavlenko & Jarvis, 2006), this model so farhas not been developed into a fully worked-outtheory of SLA. Yet another model is the interac-tionist strand of SLA research which, althoughit has focused primarily on cognitive processes ofSLA, has occasionally documented cases where so-

cial factors affected those processes (e.g., Varonis& Gass, 1985). In another example, Lyster andMori (2006) showed that a classrooms predom-inant communicative orientation affected learn-ers perception of corrective feedback.

What is the link between social factors and cog-nition? We can find some answers in the field ofsociolinguistics. In 1984, for example, Bell showedthat the cognitive process of attention to languageform creates a link between the audience (partic-ipants) and an individuals style-shifting. Several

promising recent articles similarly explored thelink between social contextual factors and cogni-tion in SLA. A crucial thread in this work is that

what matters is the learners internal perceptionof such social factors as interlocutor and situa-tional normor, learners perceptions about thetype of behavior expected of them in communica-tive and learning contexts (Lafford, 2006, p. 4,echoing the stance of Douglas, 2004, and Selinker& Douglas, 1985). Batstone (2002) argued thatindividuals orient differently to L2 input in com-

municative contexts than to L2 input in learningcontexts, and Lafford (2006) related this insightto her research on L2 learning in study abroadcontexts (primarily communicative) as opposedto classroom at-home settings (primarily learn-

ing). But how does the learners perception ofsocial factors affect acquisition of specific linguis-tic forms over time? Here again, the field of so-ciolinguistics, which focuses on the interaction ofsocial factors, attention, and linguistic form, is animportant resource for the field of SLA.

A recently developed sociolinguistic theory ofL2 acquisition that strives to integrate these fac-tors appeared in works by Preston (2000, 2002),and Fasold and Preston (2006). This theory pre-sented a model of the grammars that exist in themind of the multilingual language learner, gram-mars that are explicitly related to social and lin-guistic context, and to time. Fasold and Prestonssociolinguistic model can help SLA researchersinterpret the growing body of empirical data onsociolinguistic variation in IL use because it showshow social context affects cognition in L2 pro-cessing, and how this influence on cognition, inturn, affects the learners acquisition of specificlinguistic forms to create the IL grammar. I willdiscuss this model in some detail in relation toSLA research in related areas.

Variability in the Grammars

Fasold and Prestons (2006) sociolinguisticmodel of the bilingual speaker-hearer shows twogrammars in the mind, Grammar 1 and Grammar

2. Grammar 1 is that of the L1, and Grammar 2is that of an additional language, added in adult-hood. Each of these grammars contains forms thatrequire the speaker to select one of two or morepossible variants: for example, (a) Nobody came tomy party, or (b)Didnt nobody come to my party. Theselection of one of these variant native languageforms is probabilistically related to other factors,described in the model as Level 1, 2, or 3 factors:factors of social context, linguistic context, andtime, respectively.

The reader will recall that Gregg (1990) ob-jected to the idea that a speaker might know theprobability for production of a form. In so doing,he echoed an earlier objection to variable rulesby Bickerton (1971). However, we now know from

work by connectionist researchers, reviewed by N.Ellis (2002), that the processing of language by thehuman brain in fact involves constant incessantfiguring (p. 146). According to N. Ellis, languageprocessing is based on input frequency and proba-bilistic knowledge, and language learners must be

sensitive to the frequency of language construc-tions in all domains. Consistent with this claim isFasold and Prestons (2006) argument for the psy-cholinguistic plausibility of probability weightingof forms in mental grammars, a weighting that


5/12

Elaine Tarone 841

is assigned by this kind of unconscious constantfiguring of associations among forms, functions,and social factors. Preston (2002) stated specifi-cally that variation in SLA:

ought to be considered from the point of view of

a probabilistic device, one appliedeach time

a vari-ant is selected. For a two-way variable, a speaker . . . isequipped with a coin, the two sides of which rep-resent the options for that variable; it is flipped be-fore the product appears. . . .A great deal of sociolin-guistic research has shown that social factors influ-ence the probability of form selectionthe resultof unfair coin tosses, and checks of the actual per-formance of individuals (where data are sufficient)have shown that such statistical modeling is accurate(e.g., Macaulay, 1978). Such a model is psycholinguis-tically plausible and, I believe, shows how Bickertonsobjection to variability may be set aside. (p. 143)

In 2002, I pointed out the similarity between thissociolinguistic model5 and N. Elliss (2002) con-nectionist model of SLA (Tarone, 2002). BothN. Ellis and Preston (2002) viewed learners lan-guage knowledge as both implicit and probabilis-tic; both stated that learners own introspectionsdo not provide an accurate picture of their ownlanguage processing.6 N. Ellis concluded the fol-lowing on the basis of connectionist research:grammatical representations must have variable

strengths reflective of their frequency and con-nections must similarly be variable in weight(p. 163). So, it now appears that Greggs (1990)objections were misguided. Variability in the

weights of grammatical representations and theirconnections with other grammatical and socialrepresentations in the brain of the L2 learner arepsychologically plausible.

Let us now turn to an examination of the factorsthat weight the choices between variants of gram-matical forms. In Grammar 1 and Grammar 2 of

the sociolinguistic model, there are three causesfor IL variation: causes related to social context,to linguistic context, and to time.

Level 1: Variables of Social Context CauseInterlanguage Variation

Level 1 of the sociolinguistic model predicts variation that is caused by sociocultural factorsrelated to social context. Laffords (2006) listof these sociocultural factors included the par-

ticipants (including the interlocutor and otherspresent), purpose of the communication, socialsetting, and norms of interaction. So, for ex-ample, the presence of my grandmother whenI am speaking might cause me to avoid using

nonstandard forms like aint and double nega-tive constructions. Such sociocultural factors asinterlocutor affect the speakers choice of lin-guistic variants, in this case grammar rule variant(a) aint, or grammar rule variant (b) arent, inGrammar 1.

Sociocultural variation occurs in both gram-mars: Grammar 2 as well as Grammar 1. It evenconditions the speakers decision whether to se-lect Grammar 1 or Grammar 2to speak in theL1 or the L2. Broners (2001) study clearly showedthat the choice of English (Grammar 1) or Span-ish (Grammar 2) in a fifth grade immersion class-room depended in large part on whom her par-ticipants were addressing. Presence of the teachercaused 100% Spanish L2 use. Presence of a par-ticular peer might cause a student to use English33% of the time. Within Grammar 2, selectionof one or another variant is conditioned by so-cial contextagain, most strongly by the natureof the interlocutor. Beebe (1977, 1980) showedthat Thai speakers used more Thai phonological

variants in their English L2 speech when speakingwith Thai interlocutors. Similarly, Tarone and Liu(1995) showed that Bob, a Chinese boy acquiringEnglish L2 in Australia, used different variants ofquestions depending on whom he was talking toand where. He used Stage 5 questions with a fam-ily friend at home for over 3 months, while he was

using Stage 4 questions with his peers at schooland only Stage 3 questions with his teacher inclass.

Beebe and Giles (1984) related socioculturalvariation to learner cognition through speech ac-commodation theory, accounting for speakersconvergence to, and divergence from, the speechpatterns of interlocutors. According to speechaccommodation theory, both convergence anddivergence constitute strategies of identification

with the communicative norms of some reference

group, either present or absent at the time ofspeaking. In other words, L2 learners try to soundlike people with whom they identify when theyinteract with them; in the same way, they try tosound different from people they do not iden-tify with when interacting with them. Rampton7

(1995) provided a good example of divergencewhen he described Pakistani students increaseduse ofme no, a Pakistani English variant ofI dontthat was stigmatized by their non-Pakistani Englishteacher, when addressing her.

In the decade since 1997, there has been in-creased interest in sociocultural theory to explainkey aspects of SLA. Sociocultural researchers likeLantolf (2000) have focused on Vygotskyian so-ciocultural theory, but Bakhtinian sociocultural


6/12


theory goes a long way toward explaining IL variation of the sort we have examined here.Bakhtin (1929/1984) wrote a good deal aboutmultilinguals internalization of what he calleddifferent voices, or speaking styles. He describeddouble voicing, in which a speaker intentionally

produces another persons discourse. Accordingto Bakhtin, it is crucial that we do not learn lan-guage from dictionaries, but from people, andthat the language varieties we learn from peoplealways retain elements of the personalities and

values of those people. When the language vari-eties of others are internalized by the learner, theyretain elements of otherness in the mind of thelearner; they are not absorbed into a single voice,but rather exist in the mind of the learner as akind of chorus of different voices that may be in-

voked in turn as the learner has need of them.These voices retain the social values of their orig-inal speakers, and when the learner uses those

voices, the social characteristics and values of eachspeaker are also displayed. Broner and Tarone(2001) provided many examples of fifth gradersin a Spanish immersion classroom producing dif-ferent voices in both English and Spanish as theyengaged in language play with their classmates.Even with the same interlocutor, they might speakfirst in one voice and then in another. In this way,their speech production was variable in drawing

on a range of socially stereotyped voices formedin earlier interactions with others.

Fasold and Prestons (2006) sociolinguisticmodel allows for and predicts double voicing ofthe sort Bakhtin (1929/1984) described, that is,the same kind of ironic and deliberate use of non-standard L2 forms that Rampton (1995) noted.(In this, it pursues a direction suggested by Firthand Wagner in 1997.) The sociolinguistic modelpredicts that the speakers intention can activatethe sociocultural selection device; in other words,

one can intentionally produce in other settings alinguistic style that originated as a social responseto a particular interlocutor or social setting. Inthis aspect of his model, Preston (2000) seemedto be describing double voicing when he stated:The intention of a speaker may interact withhis or her socio-cultural identity. That is, one maychoose to perform (or perform to a greater orlesser extent) an available socio-cultural identity(p. 27).

In the following example (from Broner &

Tarone, 2001), we see the participant Leonardproducing exactly the same L2 utterancenohay recreo Theres no recessin two different

voices when addressing the same audience; firsthe speaks in his student voice or role, and then

he uses the voice of a villain (I can almost seehim twirling his moustache, the recess-hating

villain!):

Teacher: no hay recreo. (Theres no recess.)Leonard: no hay recreo. (Theres no recess.)Girl: no hay recreo ahora. (Theres no

recess now.)Leonard: ahora? . . . ahora no hay recreo heh

heh heh (villainous voice)

It is clearly Leonards creative volition that leadshim to use his villainous voice here in his L2;he does it for fun and for social effect. It couldeven be argued that he is trying out new identi-ties here, through the medium of a repertoire ofL2 varieties, or voices, that he has internalized inrelation to specified interlocutors and social set-tings. (For other examples of a Bakhtinian socio-cultural approach to language play by L2 learn-ers, see G. Cook, 2000; Ohta, 1998.) A growingamount of empirical evidence has been producedin the last decade that shows Level 1 variation,that is, the impact of social factors such as inter-locutor, task, purpose, interactional norms, andsetting on L2 learners use of variable forms ofGrammar 2.

Social context affects not just learners speechproduction, but also their perception of L2 input.Evidence shows, for example, that social context

affects learners noticing of corrective feedbackon their errors. Kormos (1999) reviewed researchon monitoring and self-repair, and concluded thatsocial contextual factors such as the accuracy de-mand of the situation (p. 324) had an impacton L2 learners cognitive process of error detec-tion.8 Similarly, Nicholas, Lightbown, and Spada(2001) reviewed research on learners noticingof recasts, or implicit negative feedback on theirerrors, and in their synthesis of that research con-cluded that learners noticing of this feedback

varies from one social context to another. A re-cent study documenting the effect of classroomcontext on learner noticing of recasts was doneby Lyster and Mori (2006), who coined the termcounterbalance hypothesis to specify the classroomfactors that affect learner noticing of differentkinds of L2 corrective feedback.

Other studies have produced evidence of theimpact of social context on L2 use and devel-opment. Rehner, Mougeon, and Nadasdi (2003)showed that learners do not acquire vernacu-

lar variants of French L2 unless they have con-tact with French L1 speakers. Exploring the im-pact of learning context on SLA, Collentineand Freed (2004) edited a collection of papers,

which included one by Collentine (2004), whose


7/12

Elaine Tarone 843

multivariate analysis of study abroad versusat-home L2 learners documented very specificconsequences for the learners morphosyntacticand lexical development. After one semester, at-home students developed more discrete gram-matical and lexical features than did the study

abroad students, but the study abroad studentsdeveloped better oral narrative ability and pro-duced more semantically dense language thantheir at-home peers. In the same volume, Sega-lowitz and Freed (2004) found that the studyabroad context produced significant effects onlearners oral fluency and overall proficiency; andLafford (2004) showed that study abroad stu-dents used fewer communication strategies thanat-home classroom learners. In a comprehensivereview of research on study abroad versus at-homeclassroom SLA, Lafford (2006) argued that it isnot the social settings themselves, but the L2learners perceptions of social variables like inter-locutor and setting that account for differences inlinguistic performance and development in thesedifferent social settings.9

It is important to recognize the growing bodyof empirical evidence that integrates IL variation

with the expression of sociocultural identity by L2learners. For example, Gatbonton, Trofimovich,and Magid (2005) showed that the accuracy ofEnglish L2 pronunciation by Chinese and Franco-

phone learners in Canada was directly related totheir own perceived ethnic group affiliation, and,furthermore, that the learners treated one an-others level of pronunciation accuracy as an indi-cator of their degree of ethnic affiliation. In theirresearch synthesis, Rehner et al.(2003)10 reportedstudies by Knaus and Nadasdi (2001) and Rehnerand Mougeon (1999) showing that the learnerssocial class influenced the degree to which theyuse formal or standard variants of French L2 (e.g.,etre vs. avoir,and neretention). This sort of careful

sociolinguistic research provides data that supple-ment and support work done within less quantita-tively oriented sociocultural theory. Socioculturaland interactionist research does not show the waysuch social variables as social class and the socialroles of interlocutors affect the acquisition of spe-cific linguistic variables; sociolinguistic researchdoes, however, and so it can enhance our under-standing of SLA.

Level 2: Linguistic Context Causes

Interlanguage Variation

Level 2 of the sociolinguistic model predictsthat the presence of other language forms in thelinguistic context may also cause the speaker tofavor one variant of a language form over an-

other. Here, the choice between the two forms isweighted by such elements in the accompanyinglinguistic context as stress placement and word-final position, or such cognitive facts as cognitivestatus of a referential form. Therefore, in Gram-mar 1 English, word-initial position causes speak-

ers to aspirate voiceless consonants, whereas word-medial or final position disfavors aspiration of thesame consonants. Variation related to linguisticcontext occurs in both Grammar 1 and Grammar2. A sociolinguistic model of variation in SLA hasconsiderable power in being able to account not

just for the impact of social factors (factors thatare given more space in this article because of theimportance accorded to them by Firth & Wagner,1997), but also for the impact of linguistic vari-ables, on grammatical or phonological use andacquisition of L2. This breadth of scope, coupled

with its ability to deal systematically with specificlinguistic outcomes, makes it uniquely capable ofintegrating several levels of analysis in a singlemodel of SLA.

Examples of Level 2 variation (variation due tolinguistic context) in Grammar 2 are provided innumerous studies published over the last decade.Space permits reference to only a few here. Anexample of transfer of Level 2 variation from L1into Spanish L2 occurred when English-speakinglearners of Spanish L2 aspirated voiceless conso-

nants in initial word position, but not in medialor final position (Diaz-Campos, 2004). Numerousstudies on English speakers acquisition of FrenchL2 completed over the last decade were synthe-sized by Rehner et al. (2003) and documentedmany instances of the impact of linguistic con-text on IL variation. Geeslin (2000) showed thedifferent linguistic factors that favor use of ser

versus estar by Spanish L2 learners at differentproficiency levels. Geeslin (2003) extended this

work with a statistical model indicating the degree

to which the presence of a particular linguisticfeature could predict use of estar by two differ-ent groups of L2 learners. Geeslin and Guijarro-Fuentes (2006) used this model to identify thesubtle linguistic features of the discourse contextthat predicted copula choice by Portuguese speak-ers acquiring Spanish L2. In short, there is sub-stantial and very detailed empirical evidence ofLevel 2 variation in learners Grammar 2, show-ing that linguistic contextsystematically causes thelearner to select one IL variant over another.

Level 3: Relative Time of Acquisition AffectsInterlanguage Variation

Level 3 variation in Prestons (2000, 2002) soci-olinguistic model occurs when the factor of time


8/12


is added in. Time affects the degree to whichsocial and linguistic variables cause variation inthe linguistic systems of Grammar 1 and Gram-mar 2. It does so in at least two ways. First, relativetime of acquisition affects the weighting of thechoices between two forms. The earliest learned

forms are deepest and most automatic, and formslearned later require more attention and con-trol. Prestons visual representation of the bilin-guals grammars showed the depth of acquisitionof the different grammatical forms and the differ-ent grammars by means of grey shading. Thoseforms in Grammar 1 that are not as deeply in-ternalized are in a shaded section of Grammar 1.In Prestons case, these represent language formssuch as more formal academic expressions (e.g.,Had I known) that he acquired later in life, after hehad previously acquired less formal variant forms(e.g., If Ida known) as a child. The sociolinguis-tic model predicts that language forms that areshaded are not as deeply internalized as unshadedforms, and so cannot be accessed as automatically;they require more attention and control in theirproduction than forms that are not shaded. Thisfeature of the sociolinguistic model is particularlyattractive in that it captures the well-attested evi-dence that some varieties or languages known bya speaker are more accessible and automatic inproduction than others.

Another way to think about Level 3, or timevariation, is that it predicts the process by whicha speakers IL changes over time. A sociolinguis-tic model of SLA predicts two kinds of change:change from above, in which new forms are ex-plicitly learned, typically in school settings, andchange from below, in which new forms areimplicitly internalized, typically in informal so-cial settings (Preston, 1989, pp. 143144; Tarone,2007c), Longitudinal studies of SLA should doc-ument both kinds of change.

In 1998, Long stated that there was only onepiece of evidence that social context might af-fect the cognitive processes and outcomes of SLA.This evidence was Tarone and Lius (1995) re-port of Lius (1991) longitudinal study of Bob,a 5-year old Chinese boy learning English L2 in

Australia. In this case, social context was shown tocause changes in both the rate and the (suppos-edly universal) route of the learners acquisitionof L2 questions.

Liu (1991) audiotaped Bob over a period of

2 years in three social settings, which were de-fined primarily in terms of his interlocutor: athome playing with the researcher, in desk-workat school with peers, and at school interacting

with the teacher.11 Bobs stages of acquisition

of English questions (Meisel, Clahsen, & Piene-mann, 1981; Pienemann & Johnston, 1987) wererelated to these three social settings: almost ev-ery new stage of question first appeared at home,then at deskwork, and last with the teacher. Thus,the rate of acquisition of the L2 appeared to be

fastest in the at-home setting. This is a classic caseof change from below, or implicit SLA. (Tarone,2007c)

If Bobs only social setting for English use hadbeen in interactions with his teacher, his progressin acquiring English as an L2 would apparentlyhave been much slower. But even more importantthan its impact on the rate of acquisition was theimpact of social setting on the route of Bobs ques-tion acquisition: that is, social setting affected theorder of acquisition. Bob appeared to acquire En-glish questions in a different order in different so-cial settings. This was a particularly startling find-ing in view of Pienemann and Johnstons (1987)claim that question stages must always be acquiredin a set order, from Stage 1 through 5. But for Bob,Stage 4 and 5 questions appeared at home in Ses-sions 23 and 24, before Stage 3 questions. Stage3 questions did not appear until Session 36, andthen they appeared in a different social setting:in desk-work with peers. Such findings provide aparticularly strong counterargument to claims byLong (1998) and others that social setting is irrel-

evant, that it has no impact on L2 acquisition overtime. Clearly, something in these social settingsaffected Bobs cognitive processing and internal-ization of new L2 rules to such an extent thathe acquired them out of their so-called universalorder.

In a more recent Level 3 (time-related) longitu-dinal sociolinguistic study of SLA, Lybeck (2002)interviewed American sojourners in Norway twice,once in the fall and again in the spring of thesame year, tracking both their social networks

(cf. Milroy, 1980) and their production of a setof phonological features of Norwegian. Lybeckfound that participants who were members ofclose-knit multiplex social networks of Norwe-gians used linguistic features similar to those oftheir group members, whereas learners whose so-cial networks were open and uniplex developedfewer native-like linguistic features. Lybeck cap-tured one instance of change due to social con-textual factors. One learner with very native-likeNorwegian phonology at Time 1 became alien-

ated from her social network in the target cultureover the course of the year. Her self-described so-ciocultural identity and attitude toward the tar-get culture changed during this period, and shegave up trying to acculturate. By Time 2, her


9/12

Elaine Tarone 845

Norwegian phonology showed a dramatic drop innative-likeness, with a more American variant ofthe Norwegian R, and much lower global ratingsof her overall phonology.12 Thus, real changesover time in a learners social support networkresulted in real changes over time in her IL

phonology.Another promising area of study that can showthat the social context of learning affects acqui-sition of specific L2 forms over time is researchon learner outcomes in study abroad programs,as opposed to at-home classroom settings (seeLafford, 2006). I would argue that the only real

way to produce counterevidence to claims that so-cial context has no impact on development of ILknowledge over time is to do longitudinal soci-olinguistic studies such as those conducted by Liu(1991) and Lybeck (2002). We need more studiesthat track over an extended period of time thedevelopment of specific L2 forms in the speechof individual L2 learners as they regularly interact

with a set of interlocutors tied to clearly specifiedsocial contexts. Ultimately, we will need sociolin-guistic studies that tie social context to change inthe linguistic system of IL over time if we are trulyto refute the assertion that acquisition and socialcontext are unrelated.

CONCLUSION

In the decade since Firth and Wagner (1997)called for better balance between the cogni-tive and the social in SLA research, substantialprogress has been made in developing models ofL2 acquisition that document the impact of socialcontext on the cognitive processes presumed tounderlie SLA. In this article, I have presented em-pirical evidence to show the relationship betweensocial context and L2 use. This evidence providessupport for the view that L2 use is not just about

cognition in a vacuum. Rather, learners L2 inputand processing of L2 input in social settings aresocially mediated; social and linguistic contextsaffect L2 linguistic use, choice, and development;and learners intentionally assert social identitiesthrough their L2 in communicating in social con-text.

Nonetheless, the danger of too much focus onsocial and cognitive factors is that we may loseour focus on long-term linguistic consequences.

Although a number of SLA approaches explore

different aspects of the relationship among socialcontext, cognition, and L2 use, few of them haveshown in concrete terms how these factors affectthe learners acquisition of specific L2 linguisticforms, rules, or systems.

In this article, I have argued that a sociolinguis-tic approach to L2 acquisition research, guided bya good sociolinguistic model of the mind of thelearner (Fasold & Preston, 2006; Preston 2000,2002), can provide a useful framework to pulltogether currently disparate areas of research,

and allow us to demonstrate consequences for ac-quisition. According to a sociolinguistic model,variation and change in specific elements of thelearners L2 linguistic knowledge are caused by(a) social contextual factors such as interlocu-tor, social setting, task, communicative purpose,learner intention, role, and identity; (b) linguisticcontextual factors in the surrounding discourse;and (c) time, that is, the time in the life of thelearner when the L2 item or grammar was ac-quired relative to other linguistic items or gram-mars, and the demonstration that the rate orroute of SLA can be altered over time by con-textual factors favoring explicit and/or implicitprocesses of acquisition. A sociolinguistic varia-tionist model for the study of SLA can provide anindispensable framework to focus SLA researchon the interaction of social factors and cognitiveprocesses as they produce the evolving, variablelinguistic system called interlanguage. Longitudi-nal sociolinguistic studies are needed to producedefinitive empirical evidence that the develop-ment of specific L2 forms in the speech of the

individual L2 learner can be profoundly affectedby the learners interaction with interlocutors inspecific social contexts.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This article has benefited from extensive and veryhelpful comments and suggestions from Barbara Laf-ford and two anonymous reviewers, as well as discussions

with Rod Ellis, Jim Lantolf, and others at the Confer-

ence on Social and Cognitive Aspects of Second Lan-guage Learning and Teaching, University of Auckland,

April 2007. Any remaining errors and omissions are myresponsibility, not theirs. Additional evidence and argu-ments in support of a sociolinguistic model of SLA areset out in Tarone (2007a, 2007b, 2007c).

NOTES

1 This orientation has been referred to as variation-ist because it explores the relationship between con-

textual variables (both social and linguistic contextualvariables) and variation in the form of learner language.

2 IL is the linguistic system evidenced when an adultL2 learner attempts to express meaning in a secondarylanguage being learned (Selinker, 1972). It is interesting


10/12


that Firth and Wagner in 1997 attacked the notion of ILas interpreted by Larsen-Freeman and Long (1991), anddid not cite the original article by Selinker (e.g., Selinkernever said IL was a continuum between L1 and L2; hestated that the goal of development might not be L2 asused by native speakers at all).

3A variable linguistic rule shows the probability of use

of a given linguistic form in the presence of a specificsocial or linguistic variable.

4 There is this focus issue ofThe Modern Language Jour-nal, of course. There is also the 2004 special issue of theInternational Review of Applied Linguisticson variation inthe IL of advanced L2 learners (Mougeon & Dewaele,2004), as well as the major Conference on Social andCognitive Aspects of Second Language Learning andTeaching, The University of Auckland, New Zealand,

April 1214, 2007, http://www.confer.co.nz/sociocog/,which will result in a published volume of work on thetopic.

5

Atkinson (2002) also pointed out the merits of aconnectionist view of language cognition, though per-haps not stressing so much its significance for modelsof learner knowledge that accord some psychologicalreality to variable rules.

6 It is interesting that connectionist accounts do notdistinguish competence and performance. The genera-tive competence/performance distinction is essentiallyincompatible with connectionist views of the mind.

7 Though Ramptons (1995) work is praised by Firthand Wagner (1997), it must be pointed out that Ramp-tons work focused far more on synchronic social con-textual and identity issues than on L2 acquisition.Ramptons research goal was apparently not to docu-ment the factors that cause change in IL linguistic sys-tems over time.

8 See similar findings by Carrier (1999).9 This conclusion is certainly consistent with Selinker

and Douglass (1985) contention that the discourse do-mains that generate L2 learners variable performanceare internally constructed by the learner.

10 See related sociolinguistic studies by Mougeon andRehner (2001), Mougeon and Dewaele (2004), andDewaele (2004a, 2004b).

11 Bob was taped for at least an hour in each data

collection session, as is standard in longitudinal studiesof language acquisition. After the first few months, heproduced a considerable amount of data in each ses-sion that was then transcribed and analyzed. Liu (1991)focused particularly on his acquisition of English ques-tions.

12 It is interesting to compare Lybecks (2002) find-ings on study abroad and IL phonology to those of Diaz-Campos (2004), whose multivariate analysis revealed nooverall differences between the phonologies of studyabroadversusat-home classroomlearners andonly somerelationship between self-reported use of the L2 outside

of class and higher pronunciation scores. These differ-ences could be the result of the fact that the two studiesused different measures of L2 use in the wider soci-ety. Diaz-Campos (and others in the 2004 SSLAvolume)used a multiple choice language contact profile, whereas

Lybeck used a more individuated social network analy-sis. Perhaps because the social network analysis allowsus to correlate L2 use with specific interlocutors whohave specified functional relationships with the learner,this kind of analysis may help us to zero in on the fac-tors that foster development of IL phonology in studyabroad contexts.

REFERENCES

Atkinson, D. (2002). Toward a sociocognitive approachto second language acquisition. Modern LanguageJournal, 86, 525545.

Bakhtin, M. (1984). Problems in Dostoevskys poetics (C.Emerson & M. Holquist, Eds. & Trans.). Min-neapolis: University of Minnesota Press. (Original

work published 1929)

Batstone, R. (2002). Contexts of engagement: A dis-course perspective on intake and pushed out-put. System, 30, 114.

Beebe, L. (1977). The influence of the listener on code-switching. Language Learning, 27, 331339.

Beebe, L. (1980). Sociolinguistic variation and style-shifting in second language acquisition. LanguageLearning, 30, 433447.

Beebe, L., & Giles, H. (1984). Speech accommodationtheories: A discussion in terms of second languageacquisition. International Journal of Sociology of Lan-guage, 46, 532.

Beebe, L., & Zuengler, J. (1983). Accommodation the-ory: An explanation for style shifting in secondlanguage dialects. In N. Wolfson & E. Judd (Eds.),Sociolinguistics and language acquisition (pp. 195213). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Bell, A. (1984). Language style as audience design. Lan-guage in Society, 13, 145204.

Bickerton, D. (1971). Inherent variability and variablerules. Foundations of Language, 7, 457492.

Bondevik, S.-G. (1996, August). Foreigner talk: When doesit occur and why? Paper presented at the Eleventh

World Congress, International Association of Ap-plied Linguistics. Jyvaskyla, Finland.

Broner, M. (2001). Impact of interlocutor and taskon first and second language use in a Spanish

Immersion program (CARLA, Working Paper No.18, Summarized in: http://www.carla.umn.edu/immersion/broner.html). Minneapolis, MN:CARLA.

Broner, M., & Tarone, E. (2001). Is it fun? Lan-guage play in a fifth grade Spanish immersionclassroom. Modern Language Journal, 85, 363379.

Brown, G., Malmkjaer, K., & Williams, J. (Eds.). (1996).Performance and competence in second language ac-

quisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Carrier, K. (1999). The social environment of secondlanguage listening: Does status play a role in com-prehension? Modern Language Journal, 83, 6579.


11/12

Elaine Tarone 847

Collentine, J. (2004). The effects of learning contexts onmorphosyntactic and lexical development. Studiesin Second Language Acquisition, 26, 227248.

Collentine, J., & Freed, B. (Eds.). (2004). Learning con-text and its effects on second language acquisition[Special Issue]. Studies in Second Language Acqui-sition, 26, 153356.

Cook, G. (2000). Language play, language learning.Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Cook, V. J. (1996). Competence and multi-competence.In G. Brown, K. Malmkjaer, & J. Williams (Eds.),Performance and competence in second language

acquisition (pp. 5769). Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Cook, V. J. (2006a, September). The nature of the L2 user.Plenary presentation at the EuroSLA Conference,

Antalya, Turkey.Cook, V. J. (2006b). Interlanguage, multi-competence

and the problem of the second language. Rivista

di Psicolinguistica Applicata VI.Dewaele, J. M. (2004a). Retention or omission of the

ne in advanced French IL: The variable effect ofextralinguistic factors. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 8,433450.

Dewaele, J. M. (2004b). Vous or tu? Native and non-native speakers of French on a sociolinguistictightrope. International Review of Applied Linguis-tics, 42, 383402.

Diaz-Campos, M. (2004). Context of learning in the ac-quisition of Spanish second language phonology.Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26, 249274.

Dickerson, L. (1975). The learners interlanguage as asystem of variable rules. TESOL Quarterly, 9, 401407.

Douglas, D. (2004). Discourse domains: The cognitivecontext of speaking. In D. Boxer & A. D. Cohen(Eds.), Studying speaking to inform second languagelearning (pp. 2547). Clevedon, UK: MultilingualMatters.

Ellis, N. (2002). Frequency effects in language process-ing: A review with implications for theories of im-plicit and explicit language acquisition. Studies inSecond Language Acquisition, 24, 143188.

Ellis, R. (1985). Sources of variability in interlanguage.Applied Linguistics, 6, 118131.

Fasold, R., & Preston, D. (2006). The psycholinguisticunity of inherent variability: Old Occam whips out

his razor. Unpublished manuscript.Firth, A., & Wagner, J. (1997). On discourse, communi-

cation, and (some) fundamental concepts in SLAresearch. Modern Language Journal, 81, 285300.

Gatbonton, E., Trofimovich, P., & Magid, M. (2005).Learners ethnic group affiliation and L2 pronun-ciation accuracy: A sociolinguistic investigation.TESOL Quarterly, 39, 489511.

Geeslin, K. (2000). A new approach to the second lan-guage acquisition of copula choice in Spanish.In R. Leow & C. Sanz (Eds.), Spanish applied lin-guistics at the turn of the millennium (pp. 5066).Somerville, MA: Cascadilla.

Geeslin, K. (2003). A comparison of copula choice: Na-tive Spanish speakers and advanced learners. Lan-guage Learning, 53, 703764.

Geeslin, K., & Guijarro-Fuentes, P. (2006). Second lan-guage acquisition of variable structures in Spanishby Portuguese speakers. Language Learning, 56,53107.

Gregg, K. (1990). The variable competence modeland why it isnt. Applied Linguistics, 11, 364383.

Herdina, P., & Jessner, U. (2002). A dynamic model of multilingualism: Changing the psycholinguistic per-

spective. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.Knaus, V., & Nadasdi, T. (2001). Etre ou ne pasetre in im-

mersion French. Canadian Modern Language Re-view, 58, 287306.

Kormos, J. (1999). Monitoring and self-repair in a sec-ond language. Language Learning, 49, 303342.

Lafford, B. (2004). The effect of the context of learning

on the use of communication strategiesby learnersof Spanish as a second language. Studies in SecondLanguage Acquisition, 26, 201226.

Lafford, B. (2006). The effects of study abroad vs. class-room contexts on Spanish SLA: Old assumptions,new insights and future research directions. In C.

A. Klee & T. L. Face (Eds.), Selected proceedings of the 7th conference on the acquisition of Spanish and

Portuguese as first and second languages (pp. 125).Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.

Lantolf, J. P. (Ed.). (2000). Sociocultural theory and sec-ond language learning. Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress.

Larsen-Freeman, D., & Long, M. (1991). An introduc-tion to second language acquisition research. London:Longman.

Liu, G. (1991). Interaction and second language acqui-sition: A case study of a Chinese childs acquisition

of English as a second language. Unpublished doc-toraldissertation,La Trobe University, Melbourne,

Australia.Long, M. (1997). Construct validity in SLA research: A

response to Firth and Wagner. Modern LanguageJournal, 81, 318323.

Long, M. (1998). SLA: Breaking the siege. University of

Hawaii Working Papers in ESL, 17, 79129.Lybeck, K. (2002). Cultural identification and second

language pronunciation of Americans in Norway.Modern Language Journal, 86, 174191.

Lyster, R., & Mori, H. (2006). Interactional feedbackand instructional counterbalance. Studies in Sec-ond Language Acquisition, 28, 321341.

Macaulay, R. K. S. (1978). Variation and consistency inGlaswgian English. In P. Trudgill (Ed.), Sociolin-guistic variation in speech communities. (pp. 132143). London: Arnold.

Meisel, J., Clahsen, H., & Pienemann, M. (1981). On

determining developmental stages in second lan-guage acquisition, Studies in Second Language Ac-quisition, 3, 109135.

Milroy, L. (1980). Language and social networks. Oxford:Basil Blackwell.


12/12


Mougeon, R., & Dewaele, J. M. (Eds.). (2004). In-terlanguage variation [Special issue]. Interna-tional Review of Applied Linguistics, 42, 295402.

Mougeon, R., & Rehner, K. (2001). Variation inthe spoken French of Ontario French immer-sion students: The case of juste vs. seulement

vs. rien que. Modern Language Journal, 85, 398415.

Nicholas, H., Lightbown, P., & Spada, N. (2001). Re-casts as feedback to language learners. LanguageLearning, 51, 719758.

Ohta, A. (1998, March). Vicarious response and the roleof language play in the acquisition of foreign language

by adult learners: Evidence from the classroom. Paperpresented at the annual conference of the Amer-ican Association for Applied Linguistics, Seattle,

WA.Pavlenko, A., & Jarvis, S. (2006). Cross linguistic influence.

Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Pienemann, M., & Johnston, M. (1987). Factors influ-

encing the development of language proficiency.In D. Nunan (Ed.), Applying second language acqui-sition research (pp. 45141). Adelaide, Australia:National Curriculum Resource Centre.

Preston, D. (1989). Sociolinguistics and second languageacquisition. New York: Basil Blackwell.

Preston, D. (1996). Variationist perspectives on secondlanguage acquisition. In R. Bayley & D. R. Preston(Eds.), Second language acquisition and linguisticvariation. (pp. 145). Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Preston, D. (2000). Three kinds of sociolinguistics andSLA: A psycholinguistic perspective. In F. M. B.Swierzbin, M. Anderson, C. Klee, & E. Tarone(Eds.), Social and cognitive factors in secondlanguageacquisition: Selected proceedings of the 1999 Second

Language Research Forum (pp. 330). Somerville,MA: Cascadilla.

Preston, D. (2002). A variationist perspective on SLA:Psycholinguistic concerns. In R. Kaplan (Ed.), Ox- ford handbook of applied linguistics (pp. 141159).Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Rampton, B. (1995). Crossing: Language and ethnicityamong adolescents. London: Longman.

Rehner, K., & Mougeon, R. (1999). Variation in the spo-ken French of immersion students: To neor not tone, that is the sociolinguistic question. CanadianModern Language Review, 56, 124154.

Rehner, K., Mougeon, R., & Nadasdi, T. (2003). Thelearning of sociolinguistic variation by advancedFSL learners: The case ofnousvs. onin immersionFrench. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25,127156.

Segalowitz, N., & Freed, B. (2004). Context, contact,and cognition in oral fluency acquisition: Learn-

ing Spanish in at home and study abroad contexts.Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26, 173200.

Selinker, L. (1972). Interlanguage. International Reviewof Applied Linguistics, 10, 209241.

Selinker, L., & Douglas, D. (1985). Wrestling with con-text in interlanguage theory, Applied Linguistics,

6, 190204.Tarone, E. (1979). Interlanguage as chameleon. Lan-

guage Learning, 29, 181191.Tarone, E. (1983). On the variability of interlanguage

systems. Applied Linguistics, 4, 142163.Tarone, E. (1988). Variation in interlanguage. London:

Edward Arnold.Tarone, E. (1990). On variation in interlanguage: A re-

sponse to Gregg. Applied Linguistics, 11, 392399.Tarone, E. (2000). Still wrestling with context in inter-

language theory. Annual Review of Applied Linguis-tics, 20, 182198.

Tarone, E. (2002). Frequency effects, noticing, andcreativity: Factors in a variationist interlanguageframework. Studies in Second Language Acquisition,24, 287296.

Tarone, E. (2007a, April). Does social context affect cog-nition in SLA? Plenary address at the Conferenceon Social and Cognitive Aspects of Second Lan-guage Learning and Teaching, The University of

Auckland, New Zealand.Tarone, E. (2007b, April). Social context and cognition

in SLA: A variationist perspective. Preconferencesymposium on sociocognition in SLA conductedat the Conference on Social and Cognitive Aspectsof Second Language Learning and Teaching, TheUniversity of Auckland, New Zealand.

Tarone, E. (2007c, April). A sociolinguistic perspective oninteraction in SLA. Paper presented in the Collo-quium on Multiple Perspectives on Interactionin SLA, Sue Gass and Alison Mackey, Organiz-ers. American Association for Applied Linguistics,Costa Mesa, California.

Tarone, E., & Liu, G. (1995). Situational context, varia-tion, and second language acquisition theory. InG. Cook & B. Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principle and prac-tice in second language acquisition (pp. 107124).

Oxford: Oxford University Press.Tarone, E., & Parrish, B. (1988). Article usage in inter-

language: A study in task-related variability. Lan-guage Learning, 38, 2144.

Tarone, E., & Swain, M. (1995). A sociolinguistic per-spective on second-language use in immersionclassrooms. Modern Language Journal, 79, 166178.

Varonis, E., & Gass, S. (1985). Non-native/non-nativeconversations: A model for negotiation of mean-ing. Applied Linguistics, 6, 7190.

sociolingo to sla approach

Documents