This article was downloaded by: 10.3.98.104 On: 30 Sep 2021 Access details: subscription number Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG, UK

The Routledge Handbook of Second Language Acquisition

Susan M. Gass, Alison Mackey

Variationist perspectives

Publication details https://www.routledgehandbooks.com/doi/10.4324/9780203808184.ch3 Robert Bayley, Elaine Tarone Published online on: 14 Nov 2011

How to cite :- Robert Bayley, Elaine Tarone. 14 Nov 2011, Variationist perspectives from: The Routledge Handbook of Second Language Acquisition Routledge Accessed on: 30 Sep 2021 https://www.routledgehandbooks.com/doi/10.4324/9780203808184.ch3

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR DOCUMENT

Full terms and conditions of use: https://www.routledgehandbooks.com/legal-notices/terms

This Document PDF may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproductions, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The publisher shall not be liable for an loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material. Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 06:25 30 Sep 2021; For: 9780203808184, chapter3, 10.4324/9780203808184.ch3 htgie hmi h ytmtcdvlpeto hi w igitcsse,or system, linguistic own their of development systematic universal the competence, a in have them learners guides second-language that that proposed (1967) Corder After discussion Historical h td fvraini is agae,priual nnnsadr ilcs ulse h first Japanese of the accuracy published the in dialects, shifts non-standard systematic the for in showed learners others results upon particularly Her and languages, interlanguage. drawing (1969), of first (1975), study Wolfram in variationist 1972b), Dickerson Thus, variation 1972a, later, of judgments). (1966, study years Labov grammaticality the by three when developed providing Only (as variation or form 1972. of on models in exercises focused began and was SLA or drills meaning variationist communicate classroom depending form to to in trying dramatically was responding vary to learner expected the be whether could on utterances learner that in variable, was ere agaei h al ieo niiullanr,sc sShmn 17)adHuebner situations. and social (1978) of Schumann range as wide such a in across learners, summarized varying individual of data are production of gathered spontaneous life and also the daily (1983), variation on the of focusing interlanguage in studies impact on language case the learner task longitudinal explored early and Many 1987) learners interlocutor (1988). 1985, L2 Tarone as Ellis, English such 1980; Thai factors (Adamson, on social studies demonstrated 1980) interlocutor Early (1977, the Beebe forms. after, of phonological Soon list). impact word a dramatic reading the vs. passage a reading (e.g., task efrac.Prastems xlctcamaotteirlvneo oilcnett learner to not context competence, social be of one: should irrelevance this study is the that SLA of about performance in claim focus of development explicit whose language matter most a researchers, the just SLA Perhaps was by success. performance. variation ignored much that safely without argued but be (1990) theory, could to interlanguage Gregg labs in context as on-campus account such social into that of Generativists urged taken of (1985) convenience be studies Douglas relevance the should and Selinker context Such the in context. social social out denied of psychology. irrelevance carried the even assuming experimental be classrooms, or and could in ignored they 1985) based development; Zobl, interlanguage designs 1985; on focused research Liceras, sociolinguistics) mid- in (e.g., using the interest In or context. background cognition, social no of had learner whom nuances of to (most related researchers variably SLA not 80s and categorical, as form linguistic to oee,i h 90,Krashen 1980s, the in However, hnetesca etn loehr .. rmsre ocasom rfo oeg oa to foreign a from or classroom, to street disappear. from or change e.g., not altogether, does grammar setting L2 social the and the setting, Change social the from learner a Remove ’ rdcino English of production ” eikr(92 oie htti igitcsse wihh called he (which system linguistic this that posited (1972) Selinker aitoitperspectives Variationist z eedn ntedge fatnint omrqie ythe by required form to attention of degree the on depending ’ 18,18)MntrMdlprrydalearner a portrayed Model Monitor 1982) (1981, s oetBye n lieTarone Elaine and Bayley Robert ’ aibepouto of production variable “ ul-nsyllabus built-in “ interlanguage “ transitional ’ attention s 3 41 ” 1 ” ) Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 06:25 30 Sep 2021; For: 9780203808184, chapter3, 10.4324/9780203808184.ch3 weeteetr ou a nfr)ta nanraiets,wihpeual eurdless required presumably which task, narrative a in than form) on was focus entire the (where ml htiltrt 2lanr ontmte?Avrains praht L al for calls settings social SLA and of range to school possible beyond widest approach the types across variationist learner occurs A it and types. as learner circumstances matter? SLA to and social study intend not to of really and we study do settings Do academic been the live. learners has expand they research which L2 to SLA in researchers settings no illiterate vast in social almost the restricted that the yet example, or narrowly illiterate, for imply populations are 2004); context too such worldwide Tarone, social in far L2s and out the currently learn (Bigelow carried by who studied is learners those affected database of of is SLA status majority SLA social The to in the 2010). subjected of cognition contexts. Tarone, terms be social that of 2000; to shown range Liu, hypotheses has wide a (cf., of argues, in set she out carried research, useful research Such a SLA variationist provides by argues, verification empirical (2000a) Tarone position, This nL pae rdcsarneo tls eedn nsocial on depending styles, of range context a produces Speaker L2 An research. L2 variationist of assumptions theoretical central some examine now will We issues Core Tarone Elaine and Bayley Robert 42 their that found (1985) Tarone inter- L2, the English in - of verbal variation singular learners third-person morphological of Japanese use and L1 the in syntactic and accuracy of Arabic of characteristic L1 study than a word be of a complex reading may language to variation In more free speech systems. much that casual argued interlanguage often from has 1989) progression some are 1987, clear (1985, to results a Ellis attention the show example, learner For which styles, lists. L2 studies, speech of L1 different levels in another. found speakers different elicit to usually elicit or to them to is vernacular, tasks apply that the design and speech, we accessing discipline when concerns one Even problem styles. in monitored obvious developed studies, most L2 methods of the the number Perhaps substantial take a always in cannot used successfully we been have methods variationist Although the is Speaker L2 the by vernacular produced style systematic most The situations. social different in (verna- informal use from for continuum a speaker appropriate the on where ranged are styles, be formal that could either. to styles styles learners cular) speech L2 of these single-style Labov, range no to are a are According there there has (1972b): that Labov speaker posited by (1972) Every articulated Tarone sociolinguistics, of speakers. assumptions single-style central no the of one is This atclrya h ee fpoooy(ao,20) htsi,i ean ob ere hta what learned be develop. to styles remains different it how said, and acquisition, That 2001). learner (Major, language phonology second of level the at particularly ( styles hnemc ihr ssgetd .. ycmaioso ro ye,developmental of types, out and error in of process acquisition comparisons the of by aspects classrooms e.g., other not and does suggested, acquires constraints, learner processing as the sequences, way either, the know, much we as change far as and, environment, language second “ tl shifting style … Ln,19,p 93) p. 1998, (Long, . ” .Teei iteduttdyta uhvraini neeti interlanguage, in inherent is variation such that today doubt little is There ). ’ e fitragaesye s seilyi h einn tgsof stages beginning the in especially is, styles interlanguage of set s ’ teto osec ih as hf omr formal more to shift a cause might speech to attention s s a rae namlil hiegamrtest grammar choice multiple a in greater was ’ oeun- more Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 06:25 30 Sep 2021; For: 9780203808184, chapter3, 10.4324/9780203808184.ch3 es om ol ipyhv encdda nakdpeettnefrs ihthird-person with forms, present-tense unmarked as coded been have simply would forms tense paeswobln osmlrsca aeois(u e ontn,1996). aggregating Johnstone, in see justified (but are categories we social similar another, patterns to from in belong or community community who one a speakers distinguish within change that language variation of stable direction the of formal in less interested into are we downward if spread Hence, time over and style or superordinate styles) formal, most the with begin singular htteitriwrtogtt s bu h grandfather Bayley the tense. about for ask unmarked to were thought interviewer account the the that in verbs the of asked: then All China. speech, in learner official (1991) In government Bayley English, of mean. participant speaker the to intermediate about an with seem asked interview they sociolinguistic a in what example, For mean to speaker forms native-language a With however, linguistic is. norm interpret (TL) language we target the speakers, of perception their what know always not speakers second-language of interpretation Our idiosyncratic be development interlanguage can of target, or norm, superordinate The same the expect, might one what to contrary and time, same the learners at However, form. to attention oelkl opoonepsvclc//i oecrflta nmr aulsec (Labov, speech either casual occur more are may in classes community than social speech all careful a of more within Yorkers in change New /r/ Language example, postvocalic in For 1966). greatly pronounce 1991). vary to (Guy, may likely individuals variant although particular more community, a speech of have a use variation of members on their all constraints to on that effect according axiomatic same community it the a consider in generally speakers Sociolinguists categories. aggregate social often researchers sociolinguistics, traditional In (and learner community L2 speech the the of define identity) categories what unclear 1995). is Swain, It and Tarone 2001; Broner, e.g., (see, easier) (and interviewer natural the it more than because be rather problems TL would presents the use decision to Hatfield a need such and the However, English away Wolfram area. Vietnamese takes D.C. marking, interview Washington, to past-tense the Vietnamese in English ethnic speakers only of L2 hiring study by ethnic variable a by this In interviewed controlled when Chinese. (1984) variants ethnic Thai by more Beebe used than fieldworkers. SLA English Thais congruent of some the learners ethnically communities, Thai of by that conducted language identity showed interviews (1980) native the have with concerns to elected work research have who SLA scholars variationists to many constructs Like sociolinguistic interviewer. adapting in problem of A speech the on impact an learners has second-language researcher the of identity The cuaeo h rlnraie nohrwrs nmvn rmoets otenx,telearners the next, the to task one from decreased moving articles in producing words, in other In accuracy narrative. oral the on accurate ’ . -s cuayi ril s was use article in accuracy “ missing. rmbelow from “ o l syu grandfather? your is old How ’ alr ouefrsta r biaoyi h Lcnesl edt confusion. to lead easily can TL the in obligatory are that forms use to failure s ” bgni nifra tl n peduwr nomr omlstyles). formal more into upward spread and style informal an in (begin ’ aiy h pae fee ogacutaothsgadahr a grandfather, his about account long a offered speaker The family. s increased least ttesm ietertidpro iglr- singular third-person their time same the at cuaeo h utpecoc rma akand task grammar choice multiple the on accurate ” h response: The ’ epne smd ifcl ytefc htw do we that fact the by difficult made is responses ’ “ g.Ohrie h nakdpast- unmarked the Otherwise, age. s h edei 1969. in die he Oh, ’ n interviewee and s aitoitperspectives Variationist “ rmabove from ’ hrdL,which L1, shared s ” twsfortunate was It s ” accuracy ta is, (that most 43 ’ Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 06:25 30 Sep 2021; For: 9780203808184, chapter3, 10.4324/9780203808184.ch3 omnte ilb nlgu ota ntesec omnt nteLbva sense. Labovian the learner in their community in construct speech change the will language in that background, that to or language analogous categories, be same will sociolinguistic the communities traditional from simply to than learners according rather even acquisition identities of learners, stages various that at patterns assume individual examine to need researchers pehcmuiis(wls 90 p 23 pp. traditional 1990, in membership (Swales, than themselves communities communities discourse define academic may speech in disciplines membership academic of used terms entering traditionally in learners not individually more categories L2 of pursue L2 example, terms 1990). for in acquirers (Bialystok, defined sociolinguistics; acquired be L2 in is may what orientation that in group and differences evidence identity to considerable learner lead may toward also that take strategies is (Nagy acquirers learning L2 contact divergent there paths into the language, comes in target learner similarities numerous the the are which target there with with although interactions varieties Moreover, for the 2003). opportunities by is by acquire and occurs, learners speakers, learning that language which language of in type context the addition, the In by acquisition. may influenced of variability stages on all constraints at same operative the be and not proceeds acquisition as rapidly change varieties Learner p 46 pp. ai o grgtn paesi uhls im rso 18,p 5)hspooe htthe of that forces, proposed both that has argued 257) and p. community, speech (1989, a Preston constitute firm. may “ classroom less L2 much an in is learners speakers aggregating for basis aaadcmo lctto measures elicitation common and Data Tarone Elaine and Bayley Robert iw(ao,17a 94,wihcnan oue eln ihtpc eindt u the put to 44 designed topics with dealing modules contains a which in researcher 1984), 1972a, (Labov, view include studies single such acquisition. a Typically, of at observation. stages data different ethnographic collecting at or model, learners this interviews uses sociolinguistic understand often to by also community time research speech SLA a Variationist of change. studies language cross-sectional conduct commonly Sociolinguists collection data of Methodologies gender of identification as variants nuanced L2 the informal such example, of for production the possible, mitigated in has making differences equipment that recording somewhat, data compact the paradox modern obtain Although to the them. however, observe observed; must being we not need, are we they when hyper- language informal as use such 1972), phenomena to of susceptible use be “ may the that (e.g., styles formal correction more other than systematic Labov with 1960s the in linguistics of subfield a as inception its Since Data 91,i a o oeaa ihteproblem. the with away done not has it 1991), a that above described axiom the on based is data of sort this speaker of Shuy centrality by Detroit The in community. studies the comparable and 1972a) 1966, al (1963, et City York New in and Vineyard hnefo above from change h observer the oee,we eatmtt dniyterlvn pehcmuiiso 2sekr,the speakers, L2 of communities speech relevant the identify to attempt we when However, h oilnusi interview. sociolinguistic The 16)adWlrm(99,scoigitc a eido aua pehdt olce in collected data speech natural on relied has sociolinguistics (1969), Wolfram and (1968) . – ’ 9 ges u oesuisaenee odcmn h ietoaiyo agaechange. language of directionality the document to needed are studies more but agrees, 49) enclr rtelnug ait ere is n pkni h omnt,i more is community, the in spoken and first learned variety language the or vernacular, s ’ paradox s “ one-down ” and ” u oli oudrtn o paes nldn 2sekr (Tarone, speakers L2 including speakers, how understand to is goal our : ” “ rls oeflpsto nrlto otesekr uhtpc include topics such speaker; the to relation in position powerful less or hnefo below, from change “ n ouint h observer the to solution One I ” nojc oiin.Acrigt ao 17b hsi the is this (1972b) Labov to According position). object in – 7.Gvncretkolde esgetthat suggest we knowledge, current Given 27). ” pl nsc omnte.Trn (2009, Tarone communities. such in apply ’ aao stescoigitcinter- sociolinguistic the is paradox s -in ’ for -ing AasnadRegan, and (Adamson ’ oko Martha on work s 2 tal et ’ ., s Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 06:25 30 Sep 2021; For: 9780203808184, chapter3, 10.4324/9780203808184.ch3 nlsso igitcvralsadbsdtersca nlsso xenlypecie social and prescribed income, and externally occupation on of indices analysis of terms social in their defined class based social gender, and as such variables categories quantitative on linguistic primarily relied of have studies analysis variationist numerous years, ensuing the in designed However, methods speakers employed they assess is, that That categories observation. to social under the community in the variation to of meaningful patterns were observed for explanations sought and observation in Labov including case variation, the be also can this that research. suggests variationist (1995) SLA Rampton some by documented use vernacular learner ehd.Tefrt inee yMlo 18)i td fBlat otenIead makes Ireland, Northern main Belfast, two of study developed a have in (1987) researchers Milroy categories, by they pioneered social first, forms The predefined language methods. represent English to and adolescent individuals Somali Somali of by needed. mix is created research creative SLA being the such identities More and produce. hybrid Minnesota the accord in not documents 1995). immigrants do Rampton, and Bigelow that 2009 Bigelow, categories example, in (as social community For (TL) and host identities the in often second- establish categories are predefined may in speakers with such they problematic because because both particularly is and and This marginalized immigrants. change, fine-grained, on focused and more research ignore with use acquisition to language deal language tend for we of studies when categories; nuances sociolinguistic problematic traditional becomes individual-level social group, dynamic predefined a This of members. such members marginal observed, to core (1999) However, Bucholtz on as language. reduced Moreover, concentrating dominant sex. by be biological a from limitations. distinct of cannot obviously speaker is serious and gender non-native example, regional has or multifaceted particular native a are also a with to or class, identities it particular tend female, a categories or but in regional male membership and community, as identity, social constructed pre-existing a static: on as identities of focus view that spectrum studies changes large-scale of broad picture example, overall For the an with us across provides categories occurring derived externally such of Use ethnicity. usatal mloaeayefcsta aeo h ilwre ih have might fieldworker the of race that effects any ameliorate substantially circumstances: right the mrcncmuiyi ea,ageta h fet fa interviewer an African of of rural effects a the role. members in that years insider-outsider argue not many of Texas, for in kind are worked community a have American who who establish linguists to sociolinguists white able (2001), Bailey However, be and sometimes Cukor-Avila English. may of studied being learners community the the Thai showed with (1980) with than Beebe interviewer above, Vernacular effect noted white As a American same community. with the and African style from vernacular interviewer Rickford female American less members. African young much an a community a in be spoke that speaker to report (AAVE) perceive speech English example, different they for use those (1994), speakers with speakers: McNair-Knox than language outsiders second with and first styles both with interviews 1978). linguistic has Gatbonton, language 1975; learner (Dickerson, L2 elicit shifting to for style tasks reserved formal of are of patterns these range same same speech typically this the pairs; of of produced minimal use range of The interview. lists wider the and of a lists, end elicit the word formal passages, To more reading include speech. as also may such everyday interviews tasks sociolinguistic in speakers, phrased across Questions data killed?). and comparable getting and brief of styles death danger are serious of in topics danger were these you (famously) where about and situation a dreams, in family, been ever and you marriage (Have patterns, dating games, childhood ooecm oeo h iiain fvrains prahsta mhszdrecruiting emphasized that approaches variationist of limitations the of some overcome To identity. of problem the and observation Ethnographic h su frsace dniyadcmuiymmesi a fetotoe nsocio- in outcomes affect can membership community and identity researcher of issue The ’ iw fmaigu oildsicin n nepeain finteractions. of interpretations and distinctions social meaningful of views “ ’ 16)cascsuyo Martha of study classic (1963) s aiirt ihteifratadteueo ergroups peer of use the and informant the with familiarity ubro al tde fsociolinguistic of studies early of number A ’ iead noprtdethnographic incorporated Vineyard, s ’ aecnb iiie in minimized be can race s aitoitperspectives Variationist ” p 6) h L2 The 267). (p. … can 45 Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 06:25 30 Sep 2021; For: 9780203808184, chapter3, 10.4324/9780203808184.ch3 s fsca ewrs nhrdt olcin iryaotdan adopted Milroy collection, data her In networks. social of use Tarone Elaine and Bayley Robert 46 rne Lybeck France, Regan 1995), proceeds. acquisition Liu longitudinal as include more change These variability requires of research patterns SLA how variationist understand to that are clear we is if differently it acquisi- studies acquisition 2009), of their levels of Bayley, different in at and direction vary learners affect (Preston the languages can factors of second same the view acquiring and accurate trajectories individuals tional generally since a However, provided study change. earlier generations research language her original different that their found of (1988) to Panamanians Cedergren returned example, have of for scholars communities; of the number resurveyed a and fact, sites In well. sociolinguistics of a field in SLA for CofP the Latina examines setting. characterize (1997) language to Haneda foreign and (precise Japanese approach respectively, university CofP choices yuppies the Chinese language and employ orientation. girls their academic (2005) gang and by Zhang music, in and taste only dress, (2008) by not also Mendoza-Denton but distinguished play), verbal slang, were of avoidance who diction, school, high California themselves social students of the categories): range by class social identified a defined, externally categories delineated traditional, the identity with strictly Eckert main correlate not school, two did that the the (categories by in in observations engaged extensive practices linguistic on and Based quantitative example. rigorous and observation Eckert analysis. ethnographic combines ideally group approach, the understanding to in meaningful used are be that must categories so non-traditional and using members, organized the are groups such that social possibility particular of representatives as individuals Crucially, isolated of criteria. categories series a study than the rather group, met social existing who participants of participants number from a community as the participants of study potential patterns to social herself introducing the understand to attempted etns uhlz(99 eot na nenlydfndctgr of category defined of variety internally wide an a on in reports practice and of (1999) congregated, communities Bucholtz members examined in where settings. have only places studies the styles, Other not (with dress smoked. Shift differed in they Cities also whether students Northern but the The advanced), in more school. participation being of the burnouts degree outside their as activities such patterns on pronunciation centered lives social whose participants the of members with contacts other lutaesm fteavnae ob andb ogtdnlsuiso 2variation. L2 of studies to longitudinal (2006) by Hansen gained and (2002) be Lybeck to (2000), advantages Liu the use of will some We illustrate Arizona. in family Vietnamese a by Hansen and Norway, in sojourners rdcsmr ope etne,adasrieyngtae enn.A i rcsBob tracks turns, Liu more As initiates meaning. he negotiates friend, or assertively family sentences and the family simple sentences, only a and produces with complex peers he sessions his more and play turns with in produces initiate home However, not at fragments. does and Bob sentence deskwork, teacher, classroom his in his With with peers friend. interactions with years: two class, of period in a over teacher situations different three in Australia, to immigrant custo fdfeetsae fEgihqetosars ieadsca otx,h hw that shows he context, social and time across questions English of stages different of acquisition otntl,anme frcn aitoitSAsuishv enlniuia ndesign. in longitudinal been have studies SLA variationist recent of number a Fortunately, research. Longitudinal network social the like which, (CofP), practice of community the is approach second The i 20)cmae h nls agaedvlpetof development language English the compares (2000) Liu “ jocks, ” ” Mlo,20,p 5) Milroy 553). p. 2002, (Milroy, ot hs oillvscnee rudtesho,adthe and school, the around centered lives social whose youth ’ 19)suyo variable of study (1996) s ’ ’ 20)suyo eri-rahg colsuet sprastebest-known the perhaps is students school high Detroit-area of study (2000) s 20)suyo h custo fNreinpoucainb American by pronunciation Norwegian of acquisition the of study (2002) s ’ td faCieeimgatt utai Lu 91 00 aoeadLiu, and Tarone 2000; 1991, (Liu, Australia to immigrant Chinese a of study s rs-etoa tde fsekr fdfeetgnrtoshv evdthe served have generations different of speakers of studies Cross-sectional ’ 20)suyo h custo fEgihslal structure syllable English of acquisition the of study (2006) s ne ’ eeinb rs tdnsbfr n fe erin year a after and before students Irish by deletion ou npeeitn oilgop pn pthe up opens groups social pre-existing on focus s ’ oilntok ni h a erie sufficient a recruited had she until networks social “ redo friend. a of friend ’ agaeuse. language s “ “ h nto td a h pre- the was study of unit the Bob, ” “ edgirls nerd “ ieya-l Chinese five-year-old a emic ” nta otcsldto led contacts Initial “ ” burnouts, esetv and perspective ” nanorthern a in ’ viewpoints, ” youths ’ s Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 06:25 30 Sep 2021; For: 9780203808184, chapter3, 10.4324/9780203808184.ch3 om;rte,cag a nov oeetaa rmtre agaenorms. language target from away movement involve language may Liu target change to like rather, closer inexorably norms; study, moving unidirectional, longitudinal and predictable her universally necessarily Importantly, time. over change participant One networks change. speaker native no into integrated or not were little distinc- who those length Norwegian increased showed while networks syllable months features, social of six Norwegian two the production into over on and integrated accuracy more in speech, focus were native a who in speakers with expected, tap As later, or tions. months trill the alveolar six at an once once as twice, and pronounced examined were were study Participants the patterns years. of three acculturation and beginning who one which women between American to Norway nine by in extent features lived pronunciation had the of acquisition the examine in success to with correlated 1987), (Milroy, theory a network by discovered been have design. only could this fact of This study peers. with case deskwork longitudinal in variationist but home, at not is it questions later, 3 Stage before home at emerge questions nvra;te utawy eaqie nnmrclodr 1 order, numerical in acquired be Bob always impacts also must setting they social universal; Crucially, style. formal the to acquisition time over spreads and style vntog Lybeck though Even native-like of use her in percent 24.6 of decrease vrtm,a ela h feto oilbarriers. social of effect the as well as time, over neatoswt i ece,hspors naqiigEgihL ol aebe uhslower. much been have at-home would the L2 in English fastest acquiring is in Bob Bob progress L2 in his of if teacher, friends acquisition that his his of with argues with rate interactions then (2000) the home, Thus, Liu at teacher. Indeed, friend his family setting. with the last with and produced work, first desk is stage new every almost h xeine increased experienced she esos n ttebgnigo h aacleto eid nte rmtemdl,adatidat third a and middle, (2006) the from Hansen another period, Hansen factory. collection end. data recording. the a the of of hours for beginning the 42 at order-filler in one Nguyens sessions, resulting an the period, of as Nguyen ten-month analysis a Mrs. Nguyen detailed over income. Her Mr. times limited 28 and in considerable and Nguyens teachers technician achieved the status been interviewed nail had little had earlier conferred a they U.S. immigrated as Although the had worked began. in the who study in occupations family been the their their had when success, of 46, year age members a Nguyen, and than Nhi Vietnam immigrants. husband less working-class her for on and focus States 41, that United age studies Nguyen, SLA Anh recent participants, few The the among is couple immigrant ogtdnlsuiso L r eddt rb usin uha hs,adt td further study to time. and over these, variably as forms More L2 such of questions (2007). acquisition the probe Svendsen influence to factors and needed social the Lanza way are as the SLA in such unclear communities of examined is immigrant studies it community privileged longitudinal features, less Filipino phonological in Norwegian Norwegian found be of substantial would acquisition findings the similar on Hansen whether networks processes the social whether of clear effects not Lybeck conclusions. is to their it apply would Asia, from identified Southeast generalize from to those difficult particularly is immigrants, it studies, Hansen small-scale While any with As phonology. yek(02 etdSchumann tested (2002) Lybeck Lybeck Hansen ’ atr flnug hneis change language of pattern s fEgihqetos Acrigt inmn n ontn 97 usinsae are stages question 1987, Johnston, and Pienemann to (According questions. English of ’ ’ 20)adHansen and (2002) s 20)suyo h custo fslal nesadcdsb Vietnamese a by codas and onsets syllable of acquisition the of study (2006) s ’ okn-ls atcpnsmyb ersnaieo ag ubro adult of number large a of representative be may participants working-class s ’ sV ARBRUL ’ td nysandsxmnh,sewsal odmntaephonological demonstrate to able was she months, six spanned only study s “ nlsssostetaetr faqiiin ihfwrtase effects transfer fewer with acquisition, of trajectory the shows analysis istsato ihhrNreinecag ties exchange Norwegian her with dissatisfaction ’ 20)suispoievlal aao h custo fL2 of acquisition the on data valuable provide studies (2006) s ’ 20)mdl-ls atcpns hl yekilsrtsthe illustrates Lybeck While participants. middle-class (2002) s ’ 17)acluainmdl prtoaie hog social through operationalized model, acculturation (1978) s “ ’ hnefo below from change hnlgcldvlpeti ae nrcrig fthree of recordings on based is development phonological ’ cuayee erae vrtm,icuiga including time, over decreased even accuracy s ’ nysca etn o nls s a enin been had use English for setting social only s r — Lbc,20,p 8)drn eidwhen period a during 182) p. 2002, (Lybeck, n hnwe tg ial per weeks appears finally 3 Stage when then and ” eeomn eisi h informal the in begins development : – . u o o,Sae4ad5 and 4 Stage Bob, for But 5.) ’ ,soe htcag snot is change that showed s, aitoitperspectives Variationist ” 20,p 183). p. (2002, 3 ’ s re of order 47 r , Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 06:25 30 Sep 2021; For: 9780203808184, chapter3, 10.4324/9780203808184.ch3 V c h hntcfaue ftepeeigcnoat iligtesgetlodr//>sos> stops > /s/ order segmental the yielding consonant, preceding the of features phonetic the (c) d h rmaia ttso h ia -,/ ihteodr ato - of part order: the with /-t,d/, final the of status grammatical the (d) ersin(Sankoff regression osnn lse lasocr naslal hti ihrsrse rusrse.Amoment A three- unstressed. a or example, stressed for either is speech; that natural syllable in a overlap in deletion occurs t/d always on > cluster (homovoiced influences consonant /-t,d/ these the of following and Several preceding segments > the liquids of > voicing obstruents in order: agreement the yielding segment, (f) following the of features phonetic the (e) rcs fdt nlssivle salsigtelnusi rsca aeoista norg or encourage that categories Lybeck social in variable or linguistic the speaker establishing the discourage involves analysis speech, data natural of language process of the hours of observations many of types sample collecting other or sufficient involves ethnographic well. in as this a sometimes but Normally interviews collect sociolinguistic in above. to usually described is ways where fieldwork interest, of of community variationist the by used of being variety goal main The analysis data of Methodology Tarone Elaine and Bayley Robert 48 b osnn lse egh(CC length cluster consonant (b) tl eindt adetekn fdt bandi tde fvrain hyas provide also They variation. of studies in obtained data of kind the handle to designed ately o ayyas oilnusshv eido V on interviews. controlled sociolinguistic relied from in have gathered derived sociolinguists data distribution years, speech informal balanced many the on For for rely unsuitable are that cells experiments possible methods of statistical number the conventional classes, social social possible two any and consider groups, age to 7,200. three yet to gender, increases have add we we and If combinations, factors. possible - eliminate tabulating In we combinations. sheet possible if of spread even number deletion, large very -t/d a of with case left still the are even we However, categories, impossible. such are exclude than factors we of frequently if combinations more some much equally Furthermore, occur clusters. occur clusters -t/d factors tense -t/d influencing past monomorphemic of example, combinations For all speech. not natural that in indicate to suffice should reflection a ylbesrs usrse stressed > (unstressed stress syllable (a) of deletion: number (e.g., greater large deletion encourage t/d very on by a influences but the requires one summarized example, wes variation by for not of 90), influenced p. analysis (1989, normally Labov quantitative speaker is tokens. a any variation influence since factors, may And, contextual that relevant variant. contexts many another social the the or or once one linguistic or variable all of analysis: that in choice Norwegian of i.e., tokens quantitative relevant environments, the the detailed relevant all either all extracts a in researcher favored the involves identified, that been process has variable contexts a linguistic social Such and variant. linguistic American identified study the ARBRUL sw aesoni u icsino h ogtdnlsuissmaie bv,the above, summarized studies longitudinal the of discussion our in shown have we As ie h ubro osbecl obntosadterrt fsm combinations, some of rarity the and combinations cell possible of number the Given ’ cosalvreiso nls,weeec aibelse eo a endmntae to demonstrated been has below listed variable each where English, of varieties all across ) aas>ohrfiaie liquids > fricatives other > nasals heterovoiced). pauses > vowels > suffix glides participial past or tense past > suffix derivational > stem aebe sdms xesvl i oilnusis eas hyhv endeliber- been have they because sociolinguistics] [in extensively most used been have ’ td was study s tal et ’ s fdfeetvrat farlvn igitcvral.Freape one example, For variable. linguistic relevant a of variants different of use s ,2005). ., r hc a w ains aielk Norwegian native-like variants: two had which , 5 C>C sYugadBye 19)note, (1996) Bayley and Young As 4 ) C) n ’ t lses eaelf ih60psil el na in cells possible 600 with left are we clusters, ARBRUL “ community pcaie plcto flogistic of application specialized a , ” a edfndi variety a in defined be may “ n h rgaskonas known programs the ’ opee>pr of part > morpheme t r n American and west ! r; ’ ’ s s Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 06:25 30 Sep 2021; For: 9780203808184, chapter3, 10.4324/9780203808184.ch3 agaelanr n a n colleagues and Rau and native includes learners work by Other language 1999). Bayley Sax, reduction 1999; and Mougeon, cluster and Jia Rehner consonant 2004; 1996, variable Regan, (e.g., of and French studies numerous morphology and Chinese, past-tense of speakers English of tion enpeeemndb h eerhr u l fwihaesont oetgte npatterned in interacting together come learners and have to a not shown intricate in may are development which which the influence of of to all many establishing ways but variables, researcher, social of offer the and by to capable linguistic predetermined long- of ability been are range or its wide cross-sectional that a in either among tools in unique relationships language is statistical learner SLA of studies, L2 analysis to influence itudinal quantitative approach may the variationist interlocutors for the tools which powerful in However, ways output. document and approaches input such the SLA; acquisition, to of approaches of order processes cognitive about on factors deal social and good learners linguistic time. a of of over impact examination us SLA the the and tell forms, that various can and of norms difficulty systematic interlanguage be to from likely departures are languages, native like ersi ol htalwteivsiao omdf i rhrhptee n enlz h data the V reanalyze and hypotheses her or his modify to investigator easily the allow that tools heuristic htlnusi n oilcnetafcsvral ere s n custo ffrsta are that forms of forms acquisition past-tense and and present- use between difference learner of degree variable The language. affects target the context in demonstrated obligatory amply social have and variation interlanguage linguistic of studies that sections, previous the in illustrated As forms of obligatory assessment and instruction, turn. target variation, in Interlanguage areas obligatory these of of each use consider the will in We issues shift. variability These style assessment. is to and ability focus the instruction the or for forms whether issues language on of depending number a however, raise differ, SLA of studies Variationist Applications n 2Fec,sekr edt s enclrfrsls rqetyta aiespeakers native than frequently less forms Chinese vernacular L2 use both in to addition, tend In hypothesis speakers 2001). the (Schmidt, French, with forms L2 in consistent L2 marking and 2004), of tense a learning Langman, on the and on effect facilitates (Bayley similar noticing perspective a Hungarian that have L2 valuable to and a seems English saliency provided L2 example, both For have SLA. studies in issues these of number Overall, fricative. interdental English Bayley speakers, native Chinese by marking plural English oilcnetmyee le eeomna eune nSA si Liu in as SLA, in and sequences contexts, social developmental different Nagy alter across 2002; rates even different Lybeck, may at 2000; context L2s 1991, acquire social (Liu, Learners 1995). features Liu, language and target Tarone variable Mougeon of 2010; (Li, use speakers speakers and native L2 of Moreover, typical 2010). is than 2004, closely more norms classroom follow tdnlsuyo nls 2qeto custo.Fnly uniaievrains tde fSLA of studies variationist V quantitative using Finally, convincingly, acquisition. shown question have L2 English of study itudinal ARBRUL ere agaemyb tde ncnetuigitrcins,scoutrl n discourse and sociocultural, interactionist, using context in studied be may language Learner usata ubro aitoitsuiso h custo fmn 2 aeused have L2s many of acquisition the of studies variationist of number substantial A ” p 256). (p. hs nld,t aejs e,Young few, a just name to include, These . ’ 20)suyo h custo fapculmrigb hns heritage Chinese by marking aspectual of acquisition the of study (2008) s ARBRUL ’ oilntok lya motn oei h acquisition the in role important an play networks social ’ n te ttsia ntuet,ta ere varieties, learner that instruments, statistical other and ’ 20)suyo hns learners Chinese of study (2009) rdcino pcfclnusi forms. linguistic specific of production ne eeinb ereso aainadcontinental and Canadian of learners by deletion ’ 19)wr nteaqiiinof acquisition the on work (1991) s ’ 19,19)suiso h acquisi- the of studies 1996) (1994, s aitoitperspectives Variationist ’ 19,20)long- 2000) (1991, s ’ custo fthe of acquisition tal et ’ ,2003; ., variable — tal et and 49 ., Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 06:25 30 Sep 2021; For: 9780203808184, chapter3, 10.4324/9780203808184.ch3 nassmns emgtak o xml,wehrteasneo hr-esnsingular performance input. third-person the learner of absence speaker interpreting the the of in evidence whether speaker Thus, example, a for factors. of ask, evidence affective might speakers by we by influenced assessments, and is on Ricans Americans Puerto York African New with by features AAVE of use main the even nelctrcnhv nipratefc nscn agaeueadaqiiin(Broner, acquisition only the and not standard is the language use on standard the based language that are evidence proficiency considerable second language have of we on tests However, most language. effect Fourth, 1995). Liu, important and Tarone an 2000; have can not but use, interlocutor article example definite the singular English in in shown third-person accuracy as favored forms, in task in other narrative of accuracy a use where promote the (1985), in can Tarone accuracy tasks from inhibiting of while forms types some (for different of content use Second, general the change 1989). encodes (Smith, question language content the field-specific whether of or depending types considerably changes both situation testing encourage to relaxed up more styles. 2000b). in set formal Tarone, more meaning be see to on suggestions, spread should focuses then learner and instruction 2000b), the (Tarone, Classroom as learner play style, language the language through vernacular in learner possibly some form, the settings, Rather on in theory. it focus begin interactionist a example, or may with sociocultural For changes by begins pedagogy. predicted change as classroom language style, for learner formal implications all not clear that are appears there change then may language instruction), by learner formal If Tarone marking 2002). account 2000; Lybeck, (Liu, into plural 2006; syntactic (Hansen, context both “ English phonological forms, social and TL of take of 1995) acquisition Liu, target study that the and studies obligatory influence his factors longitudinal of social in finally, how use show showed And, favor learners. (1991) adult to Young Chinese appears as redundancy morphemes, 2008; 2002); 2005, language Salaberry, Collins, and Ayoun (e.g., 2000; aspect lexical in Bardovi-Harlig, by marking constrained past-tense is 1984); interlanguages of Hatfield, number and a Wolfram 1994; (Bayley, marking past-tense constrains Tarone Elaine and Bayley Robert rvd hi tdnswt h blt oatal s hi 2t omnct usd the outside communicate to attention encourage L2 and 50 their speech of use styles actually formal to elicit naturally ability classrooms the Language com- to with than classroom. hope who rather students teachers accuracy language their for grammatical problem provide on perennial a placed considered is are usually this are classrooms Indeed, is discourse appropriateness. language municative premium of note, a forms where (1995) certain and only Swain appropriate, where and environments Tarone wide formal as a relatively in the However, appropriately necessarily use emotions contexts. express to to social of able able use of be be the classroom and with will range markers, familiar speaker all discourse be form, and L2 in on grammar proficient focused of classroom when fully L2 range the just a A of not the and contexts. door meaning of social the on out other focused elements when walk in language they new them outside when use contexts master elements to same social to try those of and use students range able for be a not to common from but classroom moving activities, is the in It shift from classroom. style as, to situations, the ability social the also informal but including to grammar, variation, native-like formal of a patterns acquiring only speaker not native entails acquiring language a in proficiency full Acquiring variation stylistic and Instruction rmbelow from aitoitsuisas aeipiain o agaeassmn.Frt ere cuayi a in accuracy learner First, assessment. language for implications have also studies Variationist ” — bgnigwt ere enclr)a elas well as vernaculars) learner with (beginning agtfrmn agaelanr.Glsen(97,freape hw htthe that shows example, for (1987), Goldstein learners. language many for target ’ alr oaqieafr hti biaoyi h tnadlnug or language standard the in obligatory is that form a acquire to failure s ’ ucs naqiigafr nteEgihdaetta rvdstebl of bulk the provides that dialect English the in form a acquiring in success s -s hl ili-h lnsts a h poieefc.Tid the Third, effect. opposite the had test blanks fill-in-the a while , “ rmabove from ’ ” ereo contact of degree bgnigwith (beginning ’ most s — -s ,is or Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 06:25 30 Sep 2021; For: 9780203808184, chapter3, 10.4324/9780203808184.ch3 eut o h te aibe eeams sdaai.Frtpro plural First-person dramatic. as almost were variables other the while for Results chat, moderated in time Second-person the picture. of different a quite presented chat un-moderated a sda aeo vr9 ecn nmdrtdca,bta aeo esta ecn in percent 5 than less of rate a at but chat, moderated in where percent 90 over chat, of rate un-moderated a at used was teachers in and textbooks their closely chat in moderated find that found learners They L2 chat. what internet un-moderated approximated and moderated of hours rsn nmdrtdca,btasn rm8 ecn fteisacso eainin negation of instances the of percent 84 from absent but chat, chat. un-moderated moderated in present ev h lsro n s hi 2i te oilcontexts social other in L2 their use and classroom the leave o prpit ore o h dlsetvraua;aut h tep oueadolescent use to attempt who adults vernacular; adolescent the are for Teachers input. sources appropriate sociolinguistically appropriate with not contexts classroom in learners L2 provide discussions. academic began classroom ultimately in and even inter- themselves more among peer-peer over- and talk for more to be French English, appropriate English language, pre-adolescent hardly using French native that of can their on found register exposure back vernacular (1995) fell this action, a Swain of lacked and who importance Tarone students The and example, immersion to registers. one exposure just L2 with L2, In formal the emphasized. of less registers the formal in in only practice proficient students, their provide to ways move school. to in unable learned was had who Spanish he docu- L2 register (2005) of classroom Dewaele speaker the youthful example, a beyond where For as classroom experienced appropriate. the he outside more to difficulties situations are the learn social ments registers in to usually L2 L2 use tend and informal to carefully-monitored), classrooms and need (usually they in vernacular when L2s only loss those a L2s of at learn themselves styles corrective find who formal consistent and to of students provide academic teachers reason, development to only language this speak, the produce classroom students For foster of when form. purpose to and, on primary styles, universities feedback a those and is of schools it models accurate and of offer speech, purpose of the styles formal is academic, it accuracy; formal to otifra aite utbet h oe h tet rtebu olrwrpae rfrtopics for activity or recreational for workplace, of collar place kinds blue certain the the or not or culture street, clearly pop the as are home, such the classrooms to Indeed, suitable varieties ridiculous. informal sounding most up wind merely language 2sekr h r o eces n xoete otesyitcdfeecso 2ta vary that L2 of of use the differences examined stylistic variables example, sociolinguistic the for French to (2009), studied Pierozak them widely and expose three Compernolle and Van context. teachers, with to not interaction according authentic are in who engage Internet to speakers classroom. opportunity a L2 of the that walls learners is four fact classroom-bound the undeniable offer inside the imagining may performance though chat their role-plays, even judging situations, do there social still to of are range asked teachers a their be in L2s may their use students might styles, they how informal of situations production social encourage similar in To themselves it use can they so intake that know types We different situations. of particular discussion the to promote varieties, appropriateness and adolescent their etc., on and sports, input language of provide of language to the classroom well culture, the as popular in sources, of used Such be language culture. can popular videos, of short tools and and home less-than-adequate films the of as of range language of the a use to classroom, learners the language the suggests expose than Dewaele other example, use For L2 study exist. to for opportunity context no have no who students and For abroad, community. local the in learners heritage with interact intake h usinrie ysuissc sTrn n wi 19)adDwee(05 shwto how is (2005) Dewaele and (1995) Swain and Tarone as such studies by raised question The find to decades for struggled have teachers immersion language K-12 and language University ” Cre,1967) (Corder, — hti,i ilb ifcl o erest ovr hsifra nu into input informal this convert to learners for difficult be will it is, that on a h rfre om Similarly, form. preferred the was tu a sd9. ecn ftetm nu-oeae chat. un-moderated in time the of percent 99.8 used was telenovelas — on/nous 6 aytahr retersuet to students their urge teachers Many . ntefrinlnug lsro to classroom language foreign the in — — u oeipti etrta none. than better is input some but osuyara,frisac,o to or instance, for abroad, study to , tu/vous vous and , aitoitperspectives Variationist nous a sd9. percent 99.5 used was ne “ ’ ne nu osntequal not does input h omlvariant, formal the , peh However, speech. a categorically was omission 7 — n16 in 51 Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 06:25 30 Sep 2021; For: 9780203808184, chapter3, 10.4324/9780203808184.ch3 paesa iia ot)Priiaini uhni omncto hog nieca may chat use. online native L2 through vernacular enables and communication and Skype authentic learners learners oral, in as L2 language or meet Participation such help foreign written cost.) software minimal be between at protocol either interaction speakers can internet voice today over synchronous chat voice telephone-like (Online synchronous; chat. students or French the asynchronous and online use French in to in opportunity participation variation the of finally learners patterns give group of to whole comparison discussions teacher-led forms, group involving new small instruction variants, for relevant model of four-stage identification a offer (2009) Williams and ensPetn(02 a one u hth antueprssfo i cdmcrgse nSouthern in register academic his 7 from phrases use cannot he that out pointed has (2002) Preston Dennis 6 paeso ifrn 2,adwa atr matlanr ifrnl tdfeetsae of stages different at speakers of differently studies learners qualitative impact factors what to social, and which and L1s, different linguistic L2s, of acquisition. both speakers different factors, to of particular of are kinds constraints what speakers what clearly levels, more all we at understand L2s, learners to different constrain position acquiring L1s a different in of be speakers of of will given studies use Nevertheless, longitudinal of study. of native-like each nature number in near The substantial participants to a movement. to of are number that use the affects we limits variable context necessarily if social studies to longitudinal how studies non-use and such from forms, more grammatical move language need users target we L2 studies, how longitudinal clearly of understand nature demanding the Despite directions Future Tarone Elaine and Bayley Robert 52 adults Spanish-speaking of interlanguage the in rules syntactic variable of study A (1980). D. H. Adamson, References Authors 1 Notes o ealddsrpin fteueo V of use the of descriptions detailed For more significantly 5 have syllables unstressed that means stressed patterns > unstressed group variable, match stress syllable variation the of For termed patterns process 4 individual acquisition interlanguage that An show 3 that studies several have we Although 2 s n cur 2 ntesca otxsi hc hylive. they the which of in contexts confines social the the in they beyond as L2s learners, move acquire of and types we different use of that com- studies multiple-context immigrant require longitudinal, language in conduct SLA of and particularly university, use on acquisition, and language perspectives acquisition second Variationist L2 of the munities. studies on similar context need social we of learners, effects complex the fully understand nin hr ege pwtotngtv oilcneune.Prsslike Phrases ne consequences. social negative On/nous without up too are grew example, he where Indiana (1996). Bayley aemr / eeinta w-osnn lses n oon. so and clusters, two-consonant clusters three-consonant than length, deletion cluster t/d consonant variable, more next have the For syllables. stressed than deletion t/d scale. small are studies the 2004), Regan, 2004; Langman, and (Bayley curn nls sascn agae nulse otrldsetto,Gogtw University. Georgetown dissertation, doctoral Unpublished language. second a as English acquiring ae ntepdggclfaeoko h e odnGop(96,vnCompernolle van (1996), Group London New the of framework pedagogical the on Based nadto,a oe bv,anme frsacesi oilnusishv obnddetailed combined have sociolinguistics in researchers of number a above, noted as addition, In stefrtpril fngto.Ueof Use negation. of particle first the is ’ r ainso h is-esnpua pronoun, plural first-person the of variants are ae r itdapaeial.Bt uhr otiue qal oti chapter. this to equally contributed authors Both alphabetically. listed are names “ high-falutin ’ edfratetciptfo er n potnte o nomlstylistic informal for opportunities and peers from input authentic for need ’ ” oilgop ihqatttv tde flnusi aibe.To variables. linguistic of studies quantitative with groups social o ako h aktalcourt. basketball the on talk for ARBRUL n tu on, “ n msinof omission and , backsliding e aly(02,Tgimne(06,adYugand Young and (2006), Tagliamonte (2002), Bayley see , tu/vous ” nSlne (1972). Selinker in ftescn-esnsnua rnu and pronoun singular second-person the of ne r hrceitco nomldiscourse. informal of characteristic are ’ aielnug,and language, native “ a h ball, the I Had ” for Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 06:25 30 Sep 2021; For: 9780203808184, chapter3, 10.4324/9780203808184.ch3 eege,H 18) h pedo agaecag:Vrfigifrne flnusi ifso.In diffusion. linguistic of inferences Verifying change: language of spread The (1988). H. Cedergren, eb,L 17) h nlec ftelsee ncode-switching. on listener the of influence The (1977). L. Beebe, (2000). K. French advanced Bardovi-Harlig, by morphology tense-aspect English of Acquisition (2008). R. M. (2005). Salaberry, and (Eds.) D. Ayoun, R. M. Salaberry, and D. Ayoun, oln,L 20) h oe fL nlec n eia seti h custo ftmoa morphology. temporal learners of of acquisition significance the The in (1967). aspect P. S. lexical Corder, and influence L1 of roles The (2002). L. Collins, eb,L 18) oilnusi aito n tl-hfigi eodlnug acquisition. language second in style-shifting second from and Evidence variation individual: Sociolinguistic the (1980). and L. group Beebe, the in Variation (2004). J. Langman, and R. Bayley, In English. of learners Chinese adult of speech the in variation on constraints Competing (1996). Chinese- R. Bayley, in on marking constraints Past-tense paradigm: social quantitative and the and Linguistic variation learning: Interlanguage language (1994). R. second Bayley, and theory Variation (1991). R. Bayley, learning immigrants Asian by norms community of acquisition The (1991). V. Regan, and D. H. Adamson, ilso,E (1990). E. Bialystok, uo-vl,P n aly .(01.Teefcso h aeo h nevee nscoigitcfieldwork. sociolinguistic on interviewer the of race the of effects The (2001). G. Bailey, and P. Cukor-Avila, rnr .(01.Ipc fitrouo n ako is n eodlnug s naSaihimmersion Spanish a in use language (1999). second M. and Bucholtz, first on immersion task Spanish and a interlocutor in of use Impact language (2001). second M. and Broner, first on task and interlocutor of Doesn Impact SLA: (2000). in M. level Broner, diaspora. literacy of the role in The hybridity (2004). E. linguistic Tarone, and and M. cultural Bigelow, for contexts and Texts (2009). M. Bigelow, (Eds.), Schilling-Estes N. and Trudgill, P. Chambers, K. J. In paradigm. quantitative The (2002). R. Bayley, eal,J-.(05.Ivsiaigtepyhlgcladeoinldmnin nisrce language (2000). P. instructed Eckert, in dimensions emotional and psychological the Investigating (2005). J.-M. Dewaele, li,R 18) ore fitalanrvraiiyi agaeueadterrltosi oscn language second to relationship their tense. and past use the language in of variability use intra-learner the of Sources in (1989). Style-shifting R. Ellis, discourse: narrative in variability Interlanguage interlanguage. (1987). in R. variability Ellis, of Sources (1985). R. Ellis, learner The (1975). L. Dickerson, abno,E 17) atre hntcvraiiyi eodlnug peh rda ifso model. diffusion gradual A speech: language second in variability phonetic Patterned (1978). E. Gatbonton, nvriyrudtbeo agae n linguistics and languages on table round University (Ed.), Lowenberg, P. learners. Benjamins. agaeLearning Language Press. Society in Language nls sascn agae rlmnr study. preliminary A language: second a as English Learning acquisition. language (Eds.), Preston R. D. (Eds.), and Cohen Bayley D. A. R. and Gass, M. S. Tarone, acquisition E. In English. University. Stanford dissertation, doctoral Unpublished marking. tense interlanguage Blackwell. ora fSociolinguistics of Journal program. Minneapolis. Minnesota, of University dissertation, doctoral Unpublished program. know? we Proceedings Conference Blackwell. change and variation language of handbook The Benjamins. John Amsterdam: erig btce n possibilities. and Obstacles learning: custo.I .Gs,C adn .Petn n .Slne (Eds.), Selinker L. and Preston, D. issues Madden, Psycholinguistic C. II: vol. Gass, acquisition, S. In acquisition. Acquisition Language Second in Studies Blackwell. aainMdr agaeReview Language Modern Canadian , agaeLearning Language 30 AL okn Paper Working CARLA p.157 (pp. EO Quarterly TESOL 433 , igitcvraina oilpatc:Telnusi osrcino dniyi etnHigh Belten in identity of construction linguistic The practice: social as variation Linguistic – , , 447. – 52 “ 28 8) ildl,N:Lwec Erlbaum. Lawrence NJ: Hillsdale, 181). omncto taeis scooia nlsso eodlnug use language second of analysis psychological A strategies: Communication h enormal? be Why atLnig Michigan. Lansing, East , ,43 IRAL 203 , agaesra n agaeplc:Ise,ipiain,adcs tde.Georgetown studies. case and implications, Issues, policy: language and spread Language , 5 es n seti eodlnug custo:Fr,maigaduse and meaning Form, acquisition: language second in aspect and Tense – 254 , , 94. – , 58 223. , 42 ’ 38 555 , – nelnug sasse fvral rules. variable of system a as interlanguage s 303 , 270. 689 , , , 18 34 – , h oenLnug Journal Language Modern The – 595. inaoi:Uiest fMinnesota. of University Minneapolis: . 335 , 9 – 318. ” p.22 (pp. ,1 700. agaeadiett rcie nacmuiyo edgirls. nerd of community a in practices identity and Language eodlnug custo n igitcvariation linguistic and acquisition language Second – – 20. p.117 (pp. 347. – ’ p.45 (pp. 5.Ceeo,U:Mliiga Matters. Multilingual UK: Clevedon, 45). errors. es n seti oac languages romance in aspect and Tense tde nScn agaeAcquisition Language Second in Studies – ple Linguistics Applied 4) xod Blackwell. Oxford: 141). – IRAL 0.Wsigo,DC:Gogtw University Georgetown D.C.: Washington, 60). , 5 161 , agaeLearning Language , eerhmtoooyi second-language in methodology Research 89 – 367 , 170. , 6 118 , ’ – EO Quarterly TESOL t 380. who aito nscn language second in Variation – aitoitperspectives Variationist 131. esuydetermine study we , 27 mtra:John Amsterdam: . 331 , , 13 p.97 (pp. – , ,1 339. ITESOL MI 9 401 , Oxford: . – Oxford: . Oxford: . 22. Language – – 120). 407. what 53 Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 06:25 30 Sep 2021; For: 9780203808184, chapter3, 10.4324/9780203808184.ch3 ao,W 18) h hl slnusi historian. Sherzer linguistic J. as and child Baugh The J. In (1989). change. W. and Labov, variation language on project the of methods Field (1984). W. Labov, (1972a). W. Labov, change. sound a (1966). of W. motivation Labov, social The (1963). W. Labov, (1982). S. Krashen, (1981). S. Krashen, (1996). B. Johnstone, az,E n vnsn .A 20) elm h orfinsaeadImgtb bet elyuwhat you tell to able be might I and are friends your who me Tell (2007). A. B. Svendsen, and E. Lanza, (1972b). W. Labov, language heritage Chinese by marking aspect perfective of (re)acquisition The (2008). R. Bayley, and L. Jia, (1983). T. Huebner, asn .G (2006). G. J. Hansen, aea .(97.Scn agaelann na in learning language Second constraints. (1997). morphological M. of Haneda, model exponential An phonology: variable in Explanation (1991). R. G. Guy, rg,K 19) h aibecmeec oe n h tisn English?. it of why speakers and model nonnative competence for variable The target (1990). only K. Gregg, The English: Standard (1987). M. L. Goldstein, Tarone Elaine and Bayley Robert 54 (Eds.), (2010). Schilling-Estes K. N. Rehner, and and Trudgill, T., P. Chambers, Nadasdi, K. R., J. Mougeon, In networks. Social (2002). L. Milroy, (1987). L. Milroy, (2008). N. Mendoza-Denton, (2001). C. R. Major, siege. the Breaking (1998). M. Long, child (2000). a G.-q. of Liu, study case A acquisition: language second learners and Interaction of (1991). G.-q determination Liu, the in intake language. of second role a as The Chinese (1985). of J. learners of Liceras, speech the in variation Sociolinguistic (2010). X. Li, ogo,R,Rhe,K,adNdsi .(04.Telann fsoe rnhvrainb immersion by variation French spoken of learning The (2004). T. Nadasdi, and K., Rehner, R., Mougeon, Norway. in Americans of pronunciation language second and identification Cultural (2002). K. Lybeck, ay . lneu . n ue,J 20) eodlnug custo and acquisition language Second (2003). J. Auger, and H., Blondeau, N., Nagy, e odnGop(96.Apdgg fmliieais einn oilfutures. social Designing multiliteracies: of pedagogy A (1996). Group London New (Eds.), Linguistics. Press. University agaes o pa:Sca ewr nlss utlnuls,adidentity. and multilingualism, analysis, network Social speak: you language(s) Press. Pennsylvania (Eds.), Xiao Y. and He 205 (pp. W. A. In learners. Continuum. Bilingualism learners. agaeVrainadChange and Variation Language .G adn(Eds.), Madden G. C. Quarterly adoko agaevrainadchange and variation language of handbook Blackwell. Erlbaum. Lawrence language Australia. second Melbourne, a University, Deakin dissertation, doctoral Unpublished Language. Second a as House. Learning tdnsi oot,Canada. Toronto, in students Matters. Multilingual UK: Clevedon, Journal Language Modern The netgto fsbetduln nteFec fMnra Anglophones. Montreal of French the in doubling Change subject of investigation Review , agaei s:Raig nsociolinguistics in Readings use: in Language , 61 , 15 – , h aainMdr agaeReview Language Modern Canadian The 60 2) oouu nvriyo Hawai of University Honolulu: 222). 21 543 , ,73 , 366 , 11 417 , neato n eodlnug custo:Alniuia td fachild a of study longitudinal A acquisition: language second and Interaction – 275 , agaeadsca networks social and Language – ejn:BiigLnug n utr University. Culture and Language Beijing Beijing: . h oilsrtfcto fEgihi e okcity York New in English of stratification social The 103. agaei h ne iy tde nteBakEgihVernacular English Black the in Studies city: inner the in Language acquisition language second in practice and Principles learning and acquisition language Second 563. – oilnusi patterns Sociolinguistic ogtdnlaayi fteaqiiino English of acquisition the of analysis longitudinal A – 408. 436. oeg cet h noeyadpyoeyo eodlnug phonology language second of phylogeny and ontogeny The accent: Foreign h igitcidvda:Sl-xrsini agaeadlinguistics and language in Self-expression individual: linguistic The – curn o-aiepoooy igitccntansadsca barriers social and constraints Linguistic phonology: non-native a Acquiring 300. nu nscn agaeacquisition language second in Input , oeil:Lnug n utrlpatc mn aiayuhgangs youth Latina among practice cultural and Language Homegirls: 86 , ora fSociolinguistics of Journal 3 174 , ,1 nvriyo Hawai of University – 22. – hldlha nvriyo enyvnaPress. Pennsylvania of University Philadelphia: . 191. p.549 (pp. scn dto) xod Blackwell. Oxford: Edition). (second hns sahrtg agae otrn otdwrdcitizenry world rooted Fostering language: heritage a as Chinese , ’ – “ ,Ntoa oeg agaeRsuc Center. Resource Language Foreign National i, p.28 (pp. 54 agaeVrainadChange and Variation Language omnt fpractice of community 7) xod Blackwell. Oxford: 572). ,11 ’ , xod egmnPress. Pergamon Oxford: . okn aesi ESL in Papers Working i h oilnusi optneo meso students immersion of competence sociolinguistic The 8 – – 408 , 47. 3.EgeodCif,N:Petc Hall. Prentice NJ: Cliffs, Englewood 53). Word – p.354 (pp. 432. ’ t. ahntn .. etrfrApplied for Center D.C.: Washington, . , xod egmnPress. Pergamon Oxford: . n ro,M:Karoma. MI: Arbor, Ann . 19 ple Linguistics Applied 273 , ’ – competence.InS.M.Gassand 7) oly A Newbury MA: Rowley, 373). ” – aesuyo dl Japanese adult of study case A : 309. hldlha nvriyof University Philadelphia: . , , 17 1 ,85 ’ ’ agaeVrainand Variation Language ,79 custo fEnglish of acquisition s custo fEgihas English of acquisition s nentoa ora of Journal International , 11 – “ – avr Educational Harvard xod Oxford Oxford: . 97. real 129. 364 , awh NJ: Mahwah, . ” – rnh An French: 383. London: . Oxford: . Language TESOL The . Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 06:25 30 Sep 2021; For: 9780203808184, chapter3, 10.4324/9780203808184.ch3 a,K 19) custo fsyitcvrainb mrcnlanr fFec.Upbihddoctoral Unpublished (Ed.), French. Robinson P. of In learners Attention. American (2001). by R. variation Schmidt, of stylistic Department of program. Acquisition Computer GoldVarbX. (1999). (2005). K. E. Sax, Smith, and A., S. quantitative Tagliamonte, A D., shift: Sankoff, style topic-influenced and Addressee- (1994). F. McNair-Knox, and R. J. Rickford, inmn,M n ontn .(97.Fcosifunigtedvlpeto agaepoiiny In proficiency. language of development the influencing Factors (1987). M. Johnston, and M. Pienemann, mt,J 18) oi n aito nIAoa rfcec:SEKadfedseii tests. field-specific and SPEAK proficiency: oral ITA in variation and Topic (1989). J. Smith, eikr .adDuls .(95.Wetigwith Wrestling (1985). D. Douglas, and L. Selinker, Interlanguage. (1972). L. Selinker, (1978). H. J. Schumann, To students: immersion of French spoken the in Variation (1999). R. Mougeon, and K. Rehner, In competence. sociolinguistic of study longitudinal A interlanguage: French in learners Variation Chinese (1996). sink: V. or Regan, Think (2009). E. Tarone, and A., H. Chang, V., D. Rau, and (1995). Ritchie W. B. (Ed.), In Rampton, acquisition. Kaplan language second R. and In linguistics Variationist concerns. (2009). R. Psycholinguistic Bayley, and SLA: R., D. on Preston, perspective variationist A (2002). R. D. Preston, (1989). R. D. Preston, aoe .(92.Asgetdui o nelnulietfcto npronunciation. in identification interlingual for unit suggested A (1972). E. Tarone, (2006). A. S. Tagliamonte, (1990). J. Swales, ea,V 20) h eainhpbtentegopadteidvda n h custo fnative of acquisition the and individual the and group the between relationship The (2004). V. Regan, aoe .(95.Vraiiyi nelnug s:Asuyo tl-hfigi opooyadsyntax. and morphology in style-shifting of study (1988). A E. Tarone, use: interlanguage in Variability (1985). E. Tarone, aoe .(00) etn eiu bu agaepa:Lnug ly nelnug aito n second and variation interlanguage play, Language play: language about serious Getting (2000b). E. Tarone, aoe .adLu .q 19) iutoa otx,vrainadSAter.I .Co and Cook G. In theory. SLA and variation context, Situational (Ed.), (1995). Batstone G.-q. R. In Liu, perspective. variationist and A E. SLA: in Tarone, cognition and context Social (Eds.), (2010). Polio E. C. and Tarone, Mackey A. In SLA. in interaction on perspective sociolinguistic A (2009). E. Tarone, with wrestling Still (2000a). E. Tarone, hy . ofa,W,adRly .(1968). W. Riley, and W., Wolfram, R., Shuy, israin nin University. Indiana dissertation, Toronto. of University Linguistics, Press. University (Eds.), Oxford Finegan York: E. and New Biber D. In study. sociolinguistic .Nnn(Ed.), Nunan D. ne dctoa eore nomto Center. Information Resources Educational ebr House. Newbury Press. University Cambridge Cambridge: (Eds.), Preston R. D. and Bayley R. fricative. voiceless (Eds.), Bhatia T. Linguistics Applied of Handbook Oxford Program. English Migrant Adult Centre, Research Press. Purposes pae aito atrs rlmnr study. preliminary A patterns: variation speaker Benjamins. John Amsterdam: ontv atr nSA rceig fte19 eodlnug eerhforum research language (Eds.), second Tarone 1999 E. the and of Klee, Proceedings C. SLA: Anderson, in M. Morris, factors F. cognitive Swierzbin, B. In acquisition. language Linguistics Learning Language 325 p.107 (pp. (Eds.), Seidlhofer B. learning language and use language on perspectives Sociocognitive Gass M. Susan of honor in research language Second interaction: on perspectives Press. Cascadilla 190 hti h oilnusi question. sociolinguistic the is that , – – 331. 204. , – 11 , 2) xod xodUiest Press. University Oxford Oxford: 124). 20 ,99 182 , er nlss nls naaei n eerhsettings research and academic in English analysis: Genre – h e adoko eodlnug acquisition language second of handbook new The aito ninterlanguage in Variation 124. pligscn agaeaqiiinresearch acquisition language second Applying , rsig agaeadehiiyaogadolescents among ethnicity and Language Crossing: – agaeLearning Language 35 198. oilnusisadscn agaeacquisition language second and Sociolinguistics 373 , rnil n rciei ple igitc:Suisi ooro .G Widdowson G. H. of honour in Studies linguistics: applied in practice and Principle h ignzto rcs:Amdlfrscn agaeacquisition language second for model A process: pidginization The nlsn oilnusi variation sociolinguistic Analysing – 404. IRAL , 59 , p.141 (pp. h oenLnug Journal Language Modern The 10 odn dadArnold. Edward London: . eodlnug custo n igitcvariation linguistic and acquisition language Second 581 , “ context 209 , – – 621. – 5) xod xodUiest Press. University Oxford Oxford: 159). 241. IRAL td fsca ilcsi Detroit in dialects social of study A “ ” context nitragaetheory. interlanguage in onto n eodlnug instruction language second and Cognition , abig:CmrdeUiest Press. University Cambridge Cambridge: . 42 oilnusi esetvso register on perspectives Sociolinguistic ” 335 , p.89 (pp. p.54 (pp. p.45 (pp. nitragaetheory. interlanguage in xod Blackwell. Oxford: . – 347. – – e ok Longman. York: New . – 1) ige,U:EeadPublishing. Emerald UK: Bingley, 113). 2.Ofr:Ofr nvriyPress. University Oxford Oxford: 72). , 4) dlie ainlCurriculum National Adelaide: 141). abig:CmrdeUniversity Cambridge Cambridge: . 56 p.41 (pp. 124 , p.31 (pp. – – 6.NwYr:Routledge. York: New 56). 154. aitoitperspectives Variationist ’ nulRve fApplied of Review Annual custo fteEnglish the of acquisition EO Quarterly TESOL – ahntn D.C.: Washington, . 4.Smril,MA: Somerville, 54). ple Linguistics Applied nls o Specific for English oly NA: Rowley, . p.177 (pp. p.235 (pp. ne p.3 (pp. oiland Social rntto not or Multiple – – , – 276). 201). 6 32). (4), , 55 6 , Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 06:25 30 Sep 2021; For: 9780203808184, chapter3, 10.4324/9780203808184.ch3 ol .(95.Gamr nsac fiptaditk.I .M asadC .Mde (Eds.), Madden G. C. and Gass M. S. In intake. and input of search in Grammars (1985). H. Zobl, in variation stylistic of patterns non-learner versus Learner (2009). L. Williams, and A., R. authentic Compernolle, through van French in variation language Teaching (2009). I. Pierozak, and A. R. Compernolle, van hn,Q 20) hns upei ejn:Poooia aito n h osrcino new a of construction the and variation Phonological Beijing: in Yuppie Chinese A (2005). Q. Zhang, and Bayley R. In research. acquisition language second for analysis Varbrul (1996). R. Bayley, and R. Young, (1991). R. Young, (1984). D. Hatfield, and W. Wolfram, (1969). W. Wolfram, immersion in use language second on perspective sociolinguistic A (1995). M. Swain, and E. Tarone, Tarone Elaine and Bayley Robert 56 eodlnug acquisition language second and questions Yes/no French: computer-mediated synchronous (Eds.), Williams L. and 111 Abraham (pp. L. In discourse. chat rfsinlidentity. professional Benjamins. (Eds.), Preston R. D. community Vietnamese a in English Linguistics. Acquisition classrooms. – 2) mtra:Jh Benjamins. John Amsterdam: 126). , 31 h oenLnug Journal Language Modern The 3,471 (3), aito nitragaemorphology interlanguage in Variation oilnusi td fDtotNgospeech Negro Detroit of study sociolinguistic A agaei Society in Language – eodlnug custo n igitcvariation linguistic and acquisition language Second 500. p.329 (pp. ahntn .. etrfrApidLinguistics. Applied for Center D.C.: Washington, . – 4) oly A ebr House. Newbury MA: Rowley, 344). es akn nscn agaelann:Pten fsoe n written and spoken of Patterns learning: language second in marking Tense , , 32 79 431 , 166 , – – 466. 178. e ok ee Lang. Peter York: New . lcrncdsorefrlnug erigadteaching and learning language for discourse Electronic ahntn .. etrfrApplied for Center D.C.: Washington, . nous versus p.253 (pp. on . – tde nScn Language Second in Studies 0) mtra:John Amsterdam: 306). nu in Input