- 366 - may well influence learner success in terms of final achievement, rate of progress, and,
possibly, other aspects p. 197. Therefore, we would expect that young L2 subjects would progress rapidly from the production of pidginized forms to more variable learners
varieties during a period of depidginization, and then ultimately reach the target, native- speaker variety.
8.2.4 L2 Narrative Development and L2 Aquisition
In chapter 1 we gave the briefest of reviews of the field of L2 research and then claimed that this study was intended as a contribution towards our understanding of the regularities
of L2 narrative development and we also claimed that it offered some explanation for the inherent variability found in any corpus of L2 performance data. Thus, as we have looked at
the narratives from different points of view we have, under different guises, been concerned with regularities on the one hand, and evidences of variability on the other.
When we talk about regularities in L2 narrative development, we are describing some kind of developmental sequence, or series of stages, through which all learners pass as they mature,
such as those tentatively suggested in the previous section. Ellis 1992 describes the notion as follows:
The notion of “sequence” refers to the idea that grammatical properties are acquired in a relatively fixed order such that feature z cannot be acquired before feature y has been
acquired, which in turn is only learnable when x has been mastered etc. It is an extremely powerful notion, giving substance to the term “interlanguage” and lending support to the
claims that L2 acquisition is the product of innate factors that govern how and when different grammatical operations are mastered. p. 10
Strong evidence for the existence of developmental sequences has been provided by researchers such as Wong Fillmore 1976, Wode 1981, Meisel, Clahsen and Pienemann
1981, and Jordens 1988. It should be noted, however, that, although there is a substantial body of research that testifies to the presence of developmental sequences in L2
acquisition, there is also counter-evidence to suggest that considerable variation in the order of acquisition can occur as a product of factors such as a learner’s L1 and the context
of learning. Ellis 1992 notes that “for some researchers the notion of developmental sequences remains a speculative one” p. 10. Some have suggested that developmental
sequences are only evident in spontaneous production and that the order in which L2 items enter a learner’s abstract knowledge system “is not so predetermined” p. 10. There
- 367 - is also considerable disagreement over how developmental sequences are to be explained:
cognitive explanations vie with explanations based on models of Universal Grammar. Key issues for researchers such as Ellis are: 1 is the developmental sequence found in
naturalistic learners also found in instructed learners? and 2 is it possible to alter the natural developmental sequence through formal instruction?
All the studies referred to above, except Wong Fillmore’s, were concerned with syntax andor morphology; Wong Fillmore’s study was set within the larger context of social
integration and interaction, and ours within the context of the structure and L2 acquisition of a particular discourse genre. We have looked at two stages on a continuum from a
collaborative, interactive discourse to a monologue, and from a retelling to a performance, and also at the quantitative and qualitative growth in the use of evaluative devices with
increasing language proficiency in an L2. The inherent variability of “language-learner language” has, according to Ellis 1992
attracted considerable attention from researchers. See Tarone 1988 for a survey of variability studies. As we have seen from the data, learners seem to go through stages
when they alternate between two or more ways of expressing a given structure, e.g. the following variations with the verb “run” from Aqeel:
standard: He ran to the horse.
E3 immature L1:
He runned to Billy. E10
mature dialect form: He run to London.
B17 These data clearly demonstrate the interplay of developmental and dialect features which
give rise to the alternations observed in the speech of young L2 speakers. Variability can be of two kinds. In some cases, as in Aqeel’s above, the variation may seem
to be arbitrary with the learner selecting “more or less haphazardly from” hisher “repertoire of forms for performing a given structure” Ellis 1992:11. In others, the use of
alternative variants is systematic in the sense that it is possible to explain and perhaps even to predict when each variant will be used. However, if we are to explain systematic
variability, a number of factors need to be considered Ellis 1989; these may be sociolinguistic, linguistic, or psycholinguistic in origin. Variability can also be explained with
reference to functional models of language and formfunction relationships: the process of
- 368 - acquiring an L2 involves learning which forms in the target language can be mapped on to
which functions. Once again, there is disagreement among researchers over the significance of variability
phenomena in the study of L2 acquisition and also over how best it can be explained. Is it an aspect of competence, as Tarone and Ellis argue, or merely a reflection of performance
factors, as Gregg 1990 argues? The evidence from our data seems to suggest that both might be involved: Aqeel does not seem to know which form of the verb “run” is the
target form; it could be that he has not yet mastered the inherent irregularity, or that he is influenced by his hearers in the interactive situation. Then again, Ellis’ 1992 chapter
“Interlanguage variability in narrative discourse” examines how planning time affects the use of past tense forms; this may also be a factor in Aqeel’s apparently random selection of
past tense forms for “run” in the process of telling oral narratives, when there is very little time in which to plan what to say next.
8.2.5 L1 and L2 Narratives
