PROPOSAL
ANALYSIS OF
TARONE’S MODEL
Name :
.
Sri
Wahyuningsih (0630078712)
ENGLISH
DEPARTEMENT
TRAINING
AND EDUCATION FACULTY
UNIVERSITY
OF PEKALONGAN
JL. SRIWIJAYA
NO.3 PEKALONGAN
CHAPTER
I
INTRODUCTION
v Background
Learning a
second or foreign language cannot be saparated from social aspects of
interlanguage. The prevaling persepective on interlanguage is psycholinguistic,
as reflected in the metaphor of the computer. That is, researchers have been
primarily concerned with identifying the internal mechanisms that are
responsible for interlanguage devolopment. There are three approaches to incorporate a social angle of L2
acquisition but this proposal will focus on Interlanguage as consisting of
different styles.
Elaine Tarone
has proposed that interlanguage involves a stylistic continuum.
Elaine Taron: stylistic
continuum
careful
style vernacular style
In 1979, We
postulated that these same dynamics must also apply to the use of
interlanguage
(Tarone, 1979). Learners’ interlanguage is best conceptualized as a set of
speech styles; the speech style produced when the learner is focused on meaning
(the ‘vernacular’ style) contains a different set of forms than the speech
style produced by that same learner when focused on form (the ‘careful’ style).
Empirical, quantitative research studies by numerous variationist SLA scholars,
a body of research summarized in Tarone (1988), clearly supported this view of
the nature of learner language. The language forms learners produce change when
those learners shift their attention from meaning to form or back again. As a
consequence, second-language learners may be consciously aware only of the
forms they produce in their most careful style. Their most casual interlanguage
style, the one used when focused entirely on meaning, is characterized by
unconscious processing, and so, second-language learners may be completely
unaware of the L2 forms they produce when they are focused on meaning.
v Statement of Problem
1.
Why
Elaine Tarone proposed that interlanguage involves a stylistic continuum?
2.
What
are the problems of Tarone’s idea of interlanguage as a stylistic continuum?
3.
What
is the vernacular style ?
4.
What
is the careful style?
5.
What
is the comparison between them ?
6.
What
are advantage and minus of tarone’s model?
v Benefit
1.
To
understand Why Elaine Tarone proposed
that interlanguage involves a stylistic continuum.
2.
What
are the problems of Tarone’s idea of interlanguage as a stylistic continuum
3.
To
understand what is the careful style.
4.
To
know what is the comparison between vernacular style and careful style.
5.
To
know what is the advantage and disadvantage of taron’s model.
CHAPTER II
THEORY
v PREVIOUS STUDY
Contextual Variability
It has been pointed out that contextual variability is of two
kinds: that which is determined by situational context and that which is
determined by linguistic context.
Variability that is the result of situational context is analagous
to the stylistic variability observed in native-speaker usage. Dickerson (1975) examined the occurrence of
/z/ in the speech of ten Japanese speakers studying English at university level.
She collected data on three separate occasions in a nine-month period, using a
three-part test involving (1) free speaking, (2) reading dialogues aloud,
and (3) reading word lists aloud.
Dickerson found that the correct target language variant was used most
frequently in (3) and least frequently in (1), with the frequency in (2) in
between. This order was maintained over the three occasions. The same order was
observed for other variants that were closest in form to the target language
sound. In other words, Dickerson found that L2 learners employed multiple
variants (one of which might be the correct target language form, but need not
be). They used the target language variants or those variants linguistically
closest to it in situations where they were able to audio-monitor their speech,
and those variants linguistically distant from the correct target language form
in situations where audio-monitoring was not possible. Development over time involved an increase in
the proportion of the target and target-like sounds.
Other studies of phonological development have come up with
observations similar to those of Dickerson. Schmidt (1977), for instance, noted
that Arabic-speaking students of English became more accurate in their use of
English ‘th’ sounds in a formal task than in an informal task. Also Schmidt
noted that these learners did exactly the same in L2 English as they did in L1
Arabic, where they also style-shifted from relative low to high frequency in
the use of ‘th’ sounds, depending on whether they were speaking colloquial
Arabic (associated with informal situations) or classical Arabic (associated
with formal situations). In other words, the patterns of style-shifting were
the same in L1 and L2. Beebe (1980) also found evidence of the direct transfer
of a formal feature of the L1 into the L2 when the situation demanded a formal
style. Her Thai subjects actually produced fewer instances of the target sound
(in this case /r/) in formal than in informal occasions. This was because they
used the prestige Thai [r] variant, which they associated with formal use in
their own language, in their formal English. The studies by Schmidt and Beebe,
while reinforcing the overall picture provided by Dickerson’s study, make it
clear that when a learner is able to attend closely to his speech (i.e. in a
careful style), he may produce not only a higher incidence of target language
forms, but also a higher incidence of L1 forms, if these are associated with
formal use in the L1. Language transfer, therefore, is also a variable
phenomenon.
The studies referred to above all concern interlanguage phonology.
Similar results, however, have been obtained for grammatical features. Schmidt
(1980) investigated second-verb ellipsis in sentences like
Mary is eating an apple and Sue Ø a pear.
Learners from a variety of language backgrounds always included the
second verb in such sentences in free oral production, but increasingly omitted
it in proportion to the degree of monitoring permitted by different tasks (i.e.
elicited imitation, written sentence-combining, and grammatical judgement).
Lococo (1976) found that twenty-eight university students enrolled in an
elementary Spanish course produced systematically fewer errors in adjectives,
determiners, and verbs when the task was translation than when it was free composition,
with the scores for the picture description task intermediary. Thus it is seen
once again that when the learner is able to monitor his performance, he
produces target language forms with greater regularity.
Tarone (1983) represents the effects of situational context as a
continuum of interlanguage styles (see Figure 4.2). At one end of the continuum
is the vernacular style, which is called upon when the learner is not attending
to his speech. This is the style that is both most natural and most systematic.
At the other end of the continuum is the careful style, which is most clearly
evident in tasks that require the learner to make a grammatical judgement (e.g.
to say whether a sentence is correct or incorrect). The careful style is called
upon when the learner is attending closely to his speech. Thus the stylistic
continuum is the product of differing degrees of attention reflected in a
variety of performance tasks. It should be noted, however, that Tarone views
the stylistic continuum as competence, not just as performance.
vernacular style style 2 style
3 style 4 style n careful style
unattended attended various
elicitation grammatical
speech speech tasks
(e.g. imitation, judgements
data data sentence
combining)
Figure 4.2 The interlanguage continuum (Tarone 1983: 152)
Variability as a result of the linguistic context occurs when two
different linguistic contexts induce different forms even though in the target
language they require the same form. For example, the learner might produce
correct exemplars of the third person singular ‘-s’ when the linguistic context
consists of a single clause utterance as in:
Mr Smith lives in Gloucester.
but fail to do so when the linguistic context consists of a
subordinate clause as in:
Mr Smith who live in Gloucester married my sister.
This variability may not involve a correct target language form at
all. It may consist of the use of two (or more) deviant forms.
Dickerson’s (1975) study also provides evidence of contextual
variability according to linguistic context. She noticed that her subjects used
a number of variants for English /z/ according to the linguistic environment.
The phonetic quality of the sound they produced depended on what consonants and
vowels were adjacent to /z/. Thus when /z/ was followed by a vowel, the
learners used the correct target language form every time, even on the first
occasion; but when /z/ was followed by silence, they used three variants, only
one of which was /z/. Progress from one occasion to the next consisted of the
increased use of /z/ in environments where initially it was little used, and
also of increased use of variants that were phonetically closer to /z/. For
instance in the dialogue-reading part of the first test, the subjects used /z/
fifty per cent of the time in environments where the target form was followed
by silence (as in the word ‘buzz’), but over eighty per cent of the time in the
third test. Acquisition of /z/, therefore, consisted of the gradual mastery of
its use in a range of linguistic contexts.
The effects of the linguistic and situational context interact to
influence jointly the learner’s use of interlanguage forms. If linguistic
contexts are seen as a continuum ranging from ‘simple’ (e.g. single clause
utterances for the third person singular ‘-s’) to ‘complex’ (e.g. subordinate
clauses for the third person singular ‘-s’), and if situational contexts are
also viewed as a continuum (as shown in Figure 4.2), then the use of any
particular interlanguage form can be plotted on the intersection of these two
continua (see Figure 4.3).
Vernacular
A B
simple complex
C D
careful
Figure 4.3 Interlanguage as the intersection of two continua
For example, it can be predicted that, to begin with, use of the
third person singular will be most frequent when the linguistic context is
simple and the style careful. It will be least frequent when the linguistic
context is complex and the style is vernacular (i.e. B). Whether A (i.e. simple
linguistic context but vernacular style) or D (i.e. complex linguistic context
but casual style) leads to greater regularity of use is not certain.
(Ellis, Rod. 1985. Understanding second language acquisition
pp.81-84. Oxford University Press.)
·
An
L2 Speaker produces a range of styles, depending on social context
This is one of
the central assumptions of sociolinguistics, articulated by Labov (1972b):
there are no single-style speakers. Tarone (1972) posited that there are no
single-style L2 learners either.Every speaker has a range of styles that are
appropriate for use in different social situations.According to Labov, these
speech styles could be ranged on a continuum from informal (verna-cular) to
formal styles, where the speaker’s attention to speech might cause a shift to more
formalstyles (“style shifting”). There is little doubt today that such
variation is inherent in interlanguage,particularly at the level of phonology
(Major, 2001). That said, it remains to be learned what a second language
learner’s set of interlanguage styles is, especially in the beginning stages of
acquisition, and how different styles develop.
·
The
most systematic style produced by the L2 Speaker is the vernacular
Although
variationist methods have been successfully used in a substantial number of L2
studies,we cannot always take the methods developed in one discipline and apply
them to another.Perhaps the most obvious problem concerns accessing the
vernacular, or speakers’ more un-monitored styles. Even when we design tasks to
elicit different levels of L2 learner attention to speech, that is to elicit
different speech styles, the results are often much more complex than usually
found in L1 studies, which show a clear progression from casual speech to
reading word lists. For example, Ellis (1985, 1987, 1989) has argued that free
variationmay be a characteristic of some interlanguage systems. In a study of
syntactic and morphological variation in the inter-language of L1 Arabic and L1
Japanese learners of English L2, Tarone (1985) found that their accuracy in the
use of third-person singular verbal –s was greater in a multiple choice grammar
test (where the entire focus was on form) than in a narrative task, which
presumably required less.
(Variationist
perspectives Robert Bayley and Elaine Tarone)
CHAPTER III
METHODOLOGICAL RESEARCH
v Technique of collecting data
In this
research the data that we use is taken by written test and recording method of
resource person. Every person research 10 resource person with written test and
recording.
1.
Written
test to collect the careful style
2.
Recording
to collect the venacular style
v Technique of analysis data
To analys the
data that we have had, we use the way:
1. identify identify
incorrect words or sentences.
2. describe describe
incorrect words or sentences. Is it venacular or careful style?
3. explain explain
the venacular and careful style.
4. compare compare
between venacular and careful style.
5. conclude concluding
the result of venacular and careful style.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Ellis, R. 2012.
The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Beebe, L.
(1980). Sociolinguistic variation and style-shifting in second language
acquisition.
Language Learning, 30(2), 433-447.
Bell, A.
(1984). Language style as audience design. Language in Society, 13, 145-204
Ellis,
Rod. 1985. Understanding second language acquisition pp.81-84. Oxford
University Press
Tarone,
E. (2008). InA. Mackey & C. Polio (Eds.), Multiple Perspectives on
Interaction in SLA.Routledge Publishers.
Elaine
Tarone. (1985). Variability in interlanguage use: A study of style-shifting in
morphology and syntax, Language Learning 35, 373-403.
