Article published In:
Australian Review of Applied LinguisticsVol. 18:1 (1995) ► pp.129–146
Setting/interlocutor-related variation in oral performance of adult ESL learners
The performance of six adult intermediate second-language learners on an oral task was examined. The subjects, sharing a number of characteristics, e.g. the source language (Polish), performed the same task twice, with two different interlocutors, in two different settings (familiar vs. ‘real-life’). The aim of the study was to investigate the influence of the familiarity of the setting/ interlocutor factors on the subjects’ performance. To analyse the surface structure errors obtained from the two interviews, Selinker’s (1972) error taxonomy was employed, thus yielding five error categories: language transfer, overgeneralization, simplification, communication based and teaching induced errors. The findings revealed that the unfamiliar, ‘real-life’ setting elicited significantly higher proportion of language transfer errors than the same task performed in the familiar environment. It is argued that adult, intermediate second-language learners, in a new, ‘real-life’ social setting, when confronted with an unfamiliar native speaker of the target language, revert to their native language, fall back on their prior knowledge to facilitate the task demands.
References
Arabski, J.
(1979) Errors as indications of the development of interlanguage. Review. Language Learning 30,2:505–507.
Beebe, L.M.
(ed.) (1988) Issues in second language acquisition: Multiple perspectives. Newbury House.
Beebe, L. and H. Giles
(1984) Speech accommodation theories: a discussion in terms of second language acquisition. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 461: 5–32.
Bell, A.
(1984) Language style as audience design. Language in Society 131: 145–204. 
Bialystok, E. and M. Sharwood-Smith
(1985) Interlanguage is not a state of mind. Applied Linguistics 6, 2: 101–117.
Dickerson, L.J.
(1975) The learner’s interlanguage as a system of variable rules. TESOL Quarterly 9, 4: 401–407.
Dulay, H., M. Burt, and S. Krashen
(1982) Language two. Oxford, Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R.
(1987) Second language acquisition in context. London, Prentice-Hall International (UK) Ltd.
(1992) Second language acquisition and language pedagogy. Clevedon, Multilingual Matters.
Gass, S. and J. Schachter
(eds) (1989) Linguistic perspectives on second language acquisition. New York, Cambridge University Press.
Jordens, P.
(1986) Production rules in interlanguage: evidence from case errors in L2 German. In Kellerman and Sharwood-Smith (eds).
Kellerman, E. and M. Sharwood-Smith
(eds) (1986) Crosslinguistic influence in second language acquisition. Oxford, Pergamon Press.
Long, M.
(1991) Measuring classroom language change. MS, University of Hawai’i.
Morrow, K.
(1979) Communicative language testing: revolution or evolution? In C. J. Brumfit and K. Johnson (eds) The communicative approach to language teaching. Oxford, Oxford University Press.
Sajavaara, K.
(1986) Transfer and second language speech processing. In Kellerman (1986).
Sharwood-Smith, M.
(1990) Input from within: Utrecht research into cross-linguistic influence in formal language learning environments. In H. W. Dechert (ed.) Current trends in European second language acquisition research. Clevedon, Multilingual Matters: 219–229.
Selinker, L.
(1972) Interlanguage. IRAL 10, 3: 209–31.
(1992) Rediscovering interlanguage. London, Longman.
Tarone, E.
(1979) Interlanguage as chameleon. Language Learning 29, 1: 181–191.
(1988) Variation in interlanguage. London, Edward Arnold.
(1989) Accounting for style-shifting in interlanguage. In S. Gass, C. Madden, D. Preston and L. Selinker (eds) Variation in second language acquisition. Vol. 21. Clevedon, Multilingual Matters: 13–21.
Tarone, E. and G. Yule
(1989) Focus on language learner. Oxford, Oxford University Press.
Taylor, B.
(1975) The use of overgeneralization and transfer learning strategies by elementary and intermediate students of ESL. Language Learning 25, 1: 73–107.