Intra-Speaker Variation

1. Intra-Speaker Variation The phonology of English as International Language Chapter 3

2. Introduction • L2 Speakers variation generally interpreted variation in correctness variation = error. • According to that the entire EFL endeavor is directed to standardizing of learners’ speech to bring it in a line with an imagined standard. • New teachers are trained first to elicit , present and then standardized with each individual students to bring their pronunciation as close as to that of the native speaker, but whenever the student deviate from standard then a Good teachers will attempt to correct these errors. • This suggests that learners of English should aim for monochrome, monolithic English, free of any intra-speaker variation in either style or grammatical correctness (criticized).

3. In there book ‘Advance Conversational English’ Crystal and Davy`s claim that even native speakers sometimes speak an grammatically in addition to employing extensive stylistic variation . • Therefore, the term of standard English is idealized abstraction which is far removed from realities. Thus, there’s the term ‘acceptable’ English which is variable in speech at the phonological level. • It is useful for L2 learners to adjust their language in style and accuracy level in response to the circumstances where an interaction is taking place. This might make sense for pedagogy to enable learners to control their variation.

4. It could be argued that Intra-Speaker Variation is a matter of natural adjustment in use ,as speakers converge towards or diverge from their interlocutors. • Therefore that such a accommodative processes cannot be taught or at least do not need to be taught . • Jenkins believes that English as international language is especial case

5. L1 and IL intra-speaker variation: a distinction • IL research took monolithic approach and failed to recognize the potential of IL for internal variation. • ILs are natural languages ,like all languages, dynamic rather than static They are subject to various influences which lead to systematic variation These variations are along sociological and situational parameters. • This caused research on IL variation to draw parallels with the sociolinguistic variation of L1 speakers. And the similarity is of process rather than product, since learners sometimes vary their language in ways not found in either the L1 or L2. • IL variation is characterized by variability in the production of linguistic ‘error’ and less variable by shifts of styles. IL is also characterized by a greater degree of grammatical error than L1.

6. Differences between L1 and IL variation • (Tarone) Differences are made between L1 and IL variation in terms of: • a- Style-shift: which refers to less or more colloquial, and • b- Register-shifting which refers to the sociolinguistic ability to speak casually in casual situations or formally in formal situations. • The problem is that • The second-language learners may learn only one register of the target language, and style-shift within that register, because they are exposed to only one register and • As Sato draws attention to this area of difference between L1 and IL speakers ,pointing out that learners do not have access to the second language norms.

7. Reasons of Those Differences • Differences between L1s and ILs exist for two reasons: • a- L1 speakers of English make grammar ‘errors’ and their spoken language varies not only in style, register, it also varies in standardness • b- Second language classrooms and materials have begun to devote attention to concepts of formality and social appropriacy. As a result, they are exposed to more than one level of formality and to the matching of linguistic forms with social parameters from an early stage of learning. • Note: IL is also affected by transfer of the mother-tongue, and learners have different degrees s of control over items according to the status of these items in their current IL. Basically, it depends on how much they know about the things they speak.

8. Phonological Intra-speaker Variation And Its Effects On Interlanguage Talk • In this section the writer tries examine some data collected to find out what happened when Non bilingual English speakers try to convergeon one another`s pronunciation . • Because the subjects are not the L1 speakers or fluent bilinguals, linguists cannot assume that they will adjust their pronunciation in the same way as the interlocutors, because: a- Speakers from different L1 backgrounds depart from target pronunciations in different ways. They are not able to cover all aspects of pronunciation.

9. b- Although in multilingual classes, students are exposed to other IL accents and over time become accustomed to them, these IL pronunciations are neither the subject nor the goal of teaching. c- The psychological fear found among students in multilingual classes, and resistance to errors of other groups.

10. Pronunciation, Major Source Of The Intelligibility Problem • A pilot study reported that most learners (learning English) find it easier to understand English speakers from their own L1 backgrounds and harder to understand learners from other languages. • Pronunciation is the major source of the intelligibility problem. And this leads to foreigner talk (FT) • FT is a form of convergence by the native speaker in order to be understood by the non-native interlocutor.

11. Main factors of Successful convergence This convergence leads to variation in target and non-target forms. The success of this process of transfer depends on 3 main factors: a- The type of transfer involved: phonological& phonetic, as the difficulty of Japanese to produce /ɜ:/ sound. As in fur b- The amount of attention the speaker was able to give replacing transfer rather than planning content. c- The salience of interlocutor comprehension at any given point in the interaction and the importance of information being exchanged and this means the phonological intelligibility takes priority for the speaker.

12. Thank you