Preface
RAYMOND MOUGEON AND JEAN-MARC DEWAELE
IRAL 42 (2004), 295–301 0019042X/2004/042-0295
c©Walter de Gruyter
This special issue of The International Review of Applied Linguistics focuses
on variation in the interlanguage of advanced second language (L2) learners.
Variation in interlanguage started to draw the attention of researchers in the
late seventies (see Tarone 1988 for an overview). Most researchers focused
on diachronic variation, i.e., they investigated developmental patterns in the
interlanguage. Since the early nineties, a growing proportion of studies have
combined a diachronic perspective with a synchronic one. That is, they have
considered variation not simply as increased knowledge on the part of learners
over time, but also as differential knowledge among learners at a given point
in time as a function of characteristics of the situation or the task in which the
interlanguage was produced, as well as enduring characteristics of the learn-
ers, such as gender, social class, personality, biographical variables linked to
the language learning experience and the use of the target language (Dewaele
1993).
A particularly thorny issue for researchers interested in variation in interlan-
guage is the choice of an appropriate theoretical model and the interpretation
of the patterns of variation observed. Beebe (1988) pointed out in her overview
of sociolinguistic approaches to SLA that sociolinguistic methods designed to
measure subtle variation in the speech of native speakers cannot be directly im-
ported to study interlanguage variation because interlanguage “involves using
a repertoire that is both limited and in a state of flux” (Beebe 1988: 44).
The state of flux might be linked, as Rehner (2002) points out, to the larger
number of independent variables that affect variation in the L2, and not sim-
ply the social characteristics of the speaker traditionally considered in soci-
olinguistic research. Additional independent factors include the students’ first
language(s), the degree of curricular and extra-curricular exposure to the L2,
and the type of input received through teachers and pedagogical materials.
Rehner (2002) insists that interlanguage researchers should therefore not
blindly adopt the sociolinguistic variationist approach in equating “correct”
L2 forms with “standard” or “prestige” L1 forms. She also suggests a differen-
296 Raymond Mougeon and Jean-Marc Dewaele
tiation between two kinds of variable production observable in interlanguage
data, namely “Type 1” variation, and “Type 2” variation:
“Type 1” variation manifests itself via an alternation between, on the one hand,
forms that conform to target language native norms and, on the other hand, forms
that are not observable in native speech, commonly referred to as ‘errors’ (e.g., il
parle au professeur versus *il parle à le professeur, both meaning ‘he spoke to the
teacher’); “Type 2” variation manifests itself via an alternation between forms that
are each used by native speakers of the target language (e.g., il ne comprend rien
versus il comprend rien, both meaning ‘he understands nothing’). (Rehner 2002:
15)
Rehner (2002) argues that the measure of learner success in relation to Type 1
variation is differential knowledge of the native versus non-native forms. It is
more difficult however to measure success in relation to Type 2 variation. It
can be achieved in terms of:
a) learners’ use of the same expressions as native speakers; b) their use of such
expressions at levels of discursive frequency similar to those found in the speech
of native speakers in the same situation; and c) the correlation of such uses with
similar independent factors, both social (e.g., social class, sex, and style) and lin-
guistic (e.g., the surrounding lexical and syntactic context), affecting the uses by
native speakers. (Rehner 2002: 15–16).
While studies that investigate Type 1 variation are primarily focused on
grammatical competence, Type 2 variation studies are centred on both gram-
matical and sociolinguistic competence, the latter consisting of “the capacity
to recognize and produce socially appropriate speech in context” (Lyster 1994:
263). One goal that unites both kinds of studies is their examination of the ef-
fect of linguistic and extralinguistic factors on progress towards the acquisition
of native grammatical or sociolinguistic norms. Further, since many of the lin-
guistic factors (e.g., linguistic properties and surrounding context of the usages
to be learned) and extralinguistic factors (e.g., attention paid to speech, length
of exposure to the target language) examined by both types of studies are the
same, the distinction between Type 1 and Type 2 variation studies should not
be overemphasized.
The need to investigate the acquisition of Type 2 variation is fuelled not
only by purely theoretical considerations, but also by practical concerns. Lan-
guage learners seem to experience great difficulty in acquiring the full range of
speech styles in the target language and in developing a capacity to alternate
between them appropriately (Mougeon, Nadasdi, and Rehner 2002; Rehner,
Mougeon and Nadasdi 2003). Having spent years learning “the orthoepic stan-
dard norm” (Valdman 2003), instructed L2 learners might find themselves at a
loss when they suddenly become L2 users unable to produce vernacular speech.
Preface 297
They might be equally distressed when having to use highly formal speech in
authentic situations. Learners appear to be monostylistic at first, stuck some-
where in the middle of the speech style continuum (Tarone and Swain 1995).
Their oral interlanguage is close to the written norm and their written interlan-
guage is close to the oral norm (Dewaele 2001). The learners’ realization that
their sociolinguistic and pragmatic competence lags behind their grammatical
competence often coincides with a stay in the target language community. This
phenomenon is nicely illustrated in Evans (1988). The author collected testi-
monies from British language students after a stay abroad. One student related
the following: “The Italians are so different, and if they want something they
will go out and get it. I’ve been taught that you ask for it politely. You realize
that unless you do what they do, shout, nothing will come out of it” (Evans
1988: 45). In other words, when in Rome, do as the Romans.
Students who come back from their stay abroad may also be in for a reverse
shock when their new vernacular forms are ‘picked upon’ by teachers. One
such testimony from a learner was discussed in Dewaele (2004) in relation to
the variable omission of ne. It also offers a glimpse into the learner’s attitude
and understanding of speech styles. The learner is Henry, a 21 year-old student
(English L1) who spent six months in France during the previous academic
year as part of his study abroad experience. In a conversation with Jean-Marc
(the researcher), shown in example (1), Henry expresses his frustration at the
negative attitude displayed by his teachers and professors of French towards the
vernacular speech styles he acquired in France, and of which he is extremely
proud.
(1) Henry J’aime pas j’aime pas trop les cours de français parce
que je trouve ça ennuyant.
‘I don’t like, I don’t like the French courses very much
because I find them boring.’
Jean-Marc Pourquoi ?
‘Why?’
Henry Parce que je sais déjà parler français assez bien mais euh
c’est pas seulement ça c’est euh il faut qu’on parle diffé-
remment parce que moi quand je suis allé euh en France
j’avais vraiment envie de parler exactement comme un
Français.
‘Because I speak French quite well already and but it is
not only that it’s that we have to speak differently be-
cause me, when I went err to France, I wanted to speak
exactly like a Frenchman.’
Jean-Marc Ah oui.
‘Ah yes.’
298 Raymond Mougeon and Jean-Marc Dewaele
Henry Mais je sais plus le faire et quand on est en cours en
Angleterre tout le monde parle en français évidemment
avec le le prof est Français.
‘But I can’t do it anymore and when one is in England
everybody speaks French of course with, the the teacher
is French.’
Jean-Marc Mmm.
‘Mmm.’
Henry Et quand même il faut parler dans le registre soutenu et
j’aime pas ça c’est tellement euh artificiel.
‘And still one has to speak in a formal register and I don’t
like that, it’s so artificial.’
Henry illustrates a phenomenon discussed by researchers who studied the ef-
fects of study abroad on the linguistic development of the interlanguage, namely
the temporary overuse of informal variants (cf. Regan 1995). Dewaele (2002)
suggested that after a phase of overgeneralization of informal variants, includ-
ing in the written interlanguage, learners start adopting more native speaker-
like variation patterns.
Using Rehner’s distinction between Type 1 and Type 2 variation, the present
special issue can be divided in two parts: The first two articles deal with Type
1 variation, the remaining ones with Type 2 variation. The first one, by Robert
Bayley and Juliet Langman, Variation in the group and the individual: Evi-
dence from second language acquisition, looks at the acquisition of the past
tense in English and Hungarian by Chinese learners. Bayley and Langman
found that individual patterns of variation closely match the group pattern, e.g.,
the individual learners and the two groups marked perfective and frequent verbs
for past tense more often than imperfective and infrequent verbs. This finding
lends support to the practice of reporting group scores in lieu of individual
results in studies investigating the development of interlanguage.
The second contribution in this issue to focus on Type 1 variation is Martin
Howard’s On the interactional effect of linguistic constraints on interlanguage
variation. The case of past time marking. Howard examines the acquisition of
passé composé ‘compound past’ and imparfait ‘imperfect’ by Irish learners
of French. Two interactive factors are found to have an effect on the acquisi-
tion of this aspectuo-temporal distinction: (i) the inherent aspectual value of
the verb (e.g., stative versus active) and (ii) discourse grounding (foreground
versus background).
The first contribution in this issue to deal with Type 2 variation is Vera Re-
gan’s article The relationship between the group and the individual and the
acquisition of native speaker variation patterns: A preliminary study. It echoes
the research question addressed in the Bayley and Langman paper but focuses
Preface 299
on the variable omission of ne in the French interlanguage of Irish learners.
Interestingly, it comes to similar conclusions about the similarity between in-
dividual patterns and group patterns. For instance the effects on variable ne
deletion of linguistic factors such as clause type and subject type or extralin-
guistic factors such as style or length of exposure to French found for the group
of learners is replicated in the interlanguage of each of the learners under study.
The next contribution is Dorin Uritescu, Raymond Mougeon, Katherine
Rehner and Terry Nadasdi’s article Acquisition of the internal and external
constraints of variable schwa deletion by French immersion students. These
authors found that Anglo-Canadian high school French immersion students
delete schwa considerably less frequently than do same-age native speakers of
Canadian French and that they do not observe the style constraint on schwa
deletion that is found in the speech of these same native speakers of Canadian
French. However, French immersion students observe the same hierarchy of
phonetic constraints on schwa deletion that is found in L1 Canadian French.
The following contribution, by Alain Thomas, Phonetic norm versus usage
in advanced French as a second language also looks at a group of Anglo-
Canadian learners of French, half of whom spent a year in France while the
other half continued studying French in an Ontario university. The focus is on
morpho-phonemic variables, namely ‘liaison’, deletion of schwa and deletion
of the negative particle ne. Like Uritescu et al., Thomas found that his learn-
ers of French display rates of schwa and ne deletion and variable liaison that
are below native norms (even after a one year stay in France). He attributes
his findings to the fact that his learners of French have lacked opportunities
to be exposed to the informal registers of French while learning French in a
university setting. His interpretation echoes a similar explanation proposed by
Uritescu et al. for their own findings.
The final contribution, by Jean-Marc Dewaele, Vous or tu? Native and non-
native speakers of French on a sociolinguistic tightrope, focuses on the in-
dependent variables linked to the choice of address pronoun (vous versus tu)
among European learners of French and French native speakers through self-
reports and spontaneous speech data. Dewaele found that, unlike the French
native controls, his learners evidence some instability in the choice of tu and
vous. For instance, while the native speakers almost never use tu with an un-
known interlocutor, the learners use this pronoun some of the time in the same
situation. According to Dewaele, such instability underscores the fact that the
learners have not yet fully developed their implicit knowledge of the sociolin-
guistic rules governing choice of address pronoun and are unable to make au-
tomatic decisions about appropriate use.
Heraclitus famously declared that “panta rei” (‘everything flows’), and sci-
entists have confirmed this from microscopic to macroscopic scales. However,
while physicists accelerate particles and astronomers can accurately predict ce-
300 Raymond Mougeon and Jean-Marc Dewaele
lestial orbits of planets and comets, we applied linguists, seem to experience
much greater difficulty in understanding, describing and manipulating move-
ment in interlanguage systems. The questions are basically the same ones that
all scientists address: why and how does it vary? How can it best be measured?
Can it be guided? Of course, human behaviour is not directly governed by the
laws that determine the motion of particles or planets and our unpredictabil-
ity makes us, as humans, unique. That said, this special issue illustrates the
fact that patterns of variation in interlanguage are not entirely unpredictable
and can be described reasonably well in terms of probabilities. More research
is needed, of course, to increase the amount of variance explained by the in-
dependent variables that have been considered so far. We hope that our work
will stimulate further research on variation in the interlanguage of advanced L2
learners.
York University
rmougeon@yorku.ca

University of London
j.dewaele@bbk.ac.uk

References
Beebe, Lesley (1988). Five sociolinguistic approaches to Second Language Acquisition. In Issues
in Second Language Acquisition: Multiple Perspectives, Lesley Beebe (ed.), 43–75. Cam-
bridge, MA: Newbury House.
Dewaele, Jean-Marc (1993). Variation synchronique en interlangue française. Ph.D. diss., Vrije
Universiteit Brussel.
— (2001). Une distinction mesurable: Corpus oraux et écrits sur le continuum de la deixis. Jour-
nal of French Language Studies 11: 179–199.
— (2002). Using sociostylistic variants in advanced French IL: the case of nous/on. In EUROSLA
Yearbook 2, Susan Foster-Cohen, Tanya Ruthenberg, and Marie Louise Poschen (eds.), 205–
226. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins.
— (2004). Retention or omission of the ‘ne’ in advanced French IL: The variable effect of ex-
tralinguistic factors. Journal of Sociolinguistics 8: 433–450.
Evans, Colin (1988). Language People. The Experience of Teaching and Learning Modern Lan-
guages in British Universities. Milton Keynes and Philadelphia: Open University Press.
Lyster, Roy (1994). The effect of functional-analytic teaching on aspects of French immersion
students’ sociolinguistic competence. Applied Linguistics 15: 263–287.
Mougeon, Raymond, Terry Nadasdi, and Katherine Rehner (2002). État de la recherche sur l’appro-
priation de la variation par les apprenants avancés du FL2 ou FLE. AILE Acquisition et Inter-
action en Langue Etrangère 17: 7–50.
Regan, Vera (1995). The acquisition of sociolinguistic native speech norms: Effects of a year
abroad on L2 learners of French. In Second Language Acquisition in a Study Abroad Context,
Barbara Freed (ed.), 245–267. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins.
Rehner, Katherine (2002). The development of aspects of linguistic and discourse competence
by advanced second language learners of French. Ph.D. diss., Toronto: OISE/University of
Toronto.
Rehner, Katherine, Raymond Mougeon, and Terry Nadasdi (2003). The learning of sociolinguistic
variation by advanced FSL learners: The case of nous versus on in immersion French. Studies
in Second Language Acquisition 25: 127–156.
Preface 301
Tarone, Elaine (1988) Variation in Interlanguage. London: Edward Arnold.
Tarone, Elaine and Merrill Swain (1995). A sociolinguistic perspective on second language use in
immersion classrooms. Modern Language Journal 79: 166–178.
Valdman, Albert (2003). The acquisition of sociostylistic and sociopragmatic variation by in-
structed second language learners: The elaboration of pedagogical norms. In The Sociolin-
guistics of Foreign Language Classrooms: Contributions of the Native, the Near-Native, and
the Non-Native Speaker, Carl Blyth (ed.), 57–78. Boston: Heinle Thomson.