The dynamics in L2 oral production: some considerations on variability in interlanguage use
Résumé
Since the very beginning, the concept of interlanguage (Selinker, 1972) has never lost its relevance in SLA research, has evolved and is now considered as a complex, adaptive and open system (Han & Tarone, 2014).
Based on a dynamic view of language use (de Bot et al., 2013; Ortega & Han, 2017), we investigate the cognitive flexibility and creative linguistic potential of L2 learners. How do L2 learners, identified with the same proficiency level, cope with production difficulties, especially in lexical retrieval?
In this presentation, we propose a closer look at the variability of interlanguage in L2 oral production. We focus not only on the quantitative and qualitative results of our research but also on methodological considerations.
In attempt to get closer to the L2 processing description, we adopt a different approach through a more fine-grained analysis of the dynamics of interlanguage (PING corpus - Krönert et al., 2015).
Twenty L1 French university students of L2 German (B2 level) were shown 29 sets of 2-line drawings and asked to explicit the differences between the two drawings.
We compared their results not only with respect to accuracy (error analysis) and fluency (pauses, etc.), but also by observing cross-linguistic influence phenomena (L1 and L3 code-switching) and control activities (self-repair, spontaneous meta-comments).
A hierarchical cluster analysis (Ward Method) pointed out 2 distinct groups with different ways of activating their linguistic and metalinguistic knowledge in lexical retrieval. The quantitative analysis showed clearly that, when facing difficulties, a “dynamic”, active and creative learner will be more productive, i.e. use all kinds of linguistic, metalinguistic and strategic possibilities to maintain fluency in oral speech production (Krönert et al., 2015). Our qualitative analysis of lexical innovation focuses at the dynamic interplay between all languages involved, with respect to morphosyntactic and phonological criteria (Marijanovic et al., 2016).
Therefore, despite a product-oriented research, we try to approach the dynamics of language production. The more creative and productive learners could be considered as more process-oriented L2 users in comparison to the more static, L2 norm and product-oriented learners.