Task related variation in interlanguage: The case of articles

ZHENBIN MABO ZHANG

Interlanguage

A dynamic linguistic systemPreserving some features of first

languageOvergeneralization of the target

language patterns

Tarone analysis

Participants- Ten Arabic students- Ten Japanese students

Methods- Grammar (Correct sentences with errors)- Oral interview (Interview native student)- Oral narratives (describe the orders of events)

Result 1

Grammar Oral interview Oral narratives0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

56

70

83

38

8591

Japanese students

Conclusion

Not enough to explain the pattern shift of “attention to language form”

Other task factors might be more helpful to explain

The present analysis

2. [+SR][+HK]

1. [-SR][+HK]

3. [+SR][-HK]

4. [-SR][-HK]

+/- information assumed known to the hearer (HK)

+/- specific referent (SR)

1. [ - Specific Referent] [+Hearer Knowledge]Standard English: definite, indefinite, 0e.g., The lion is a beautiful animal

2. [+ Specific Referent] [+ Hearer Knowledge]Standard English: definite articlee.g. He went over to the book store

3. [+ Specific Referent] [- Hearer Knowledge]Standard English: indefinite, 0e.g. Dad gave me a car

4. [- Specific Referent] [- Hearer Knowledge]Standard English: indefinite, 0e.g. If I had a million dollars, I’d buy a big boat.

Three Hypothesis 1. There will be no difference in the proportion of NP Types produced by

learners on the two oral tasks.

2. There will be no overall difference in learners’ accuracy rates in article production related to NP Type.

3. There will be no difference in accuracy rates in article production related to NP Type, when learners move from one oral task to another.

Results 1. Hypothesis 1 must be rejected: the two oral tasks did in fact elicit

different proportions of NP Types.

2. Hypothesis 2 must be rejected: In the interview, NP Type1,2,3 has the equal proportion, NP type 4 is rarely used; In the narrative, NP type 2 & 3 are the most frequently used, NP type 1&4 are rarely used

3. Hypothesis 3 must be rejected: The difference in accuracy rates was highly significant. Accuracy was by far the lowest on the grammar.

Conclusion

Communicative function of a feature

The linguistic environment of that feature

Social/situational factors such as formality of situation and ability to attend to form

THANK YOU!