Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 3

This paper is reprinted from Student Occasional Papers in Hard-Science / Human Linguistics, posted

on the Hard-Science Linguistics Web Page, http://humanlinguistics.utoledo.edu, September 2004.

CONSIDERING AVOIDANCE IN L2 ACQUISITION1


AbdulRahman Congreve

Abstract

In this paper, framed in human linguistics, the writer argues that the concept avoidance in the
field of second language acquisition (SLA) can be moved from the logical domain of grammar
into the physical domain, accessible to science. After presenting his main arguments, he briefly
lays out a plan for testing avoidance as a real-world phenomena involving people
communicating. Although he refers to avoidance as a "deliberate" strategy, we could see the
relevant properties of the person in terms of real-world variables affecting conditional properties
in the plex of a communicating individual.

O'Grady, et al. (1989) discuss avoidance as a subset of an second-language


(L2) learner's communication strategies. They also state that a communication
strategy is a conscious plan (313). Gass and Selinker (2001) define avoidance as a
type of interlanguage (IL) communication strategy (241) where the NNS chooses to
use or not to use a particular structure (119). They also state that the difference
between first-language (L1) and L2 production is the only variable that consistently
predicts avoidance (120). Our task, then, is to examine avoidance in light of a
difference between the L1 and L2 production. To examine avoidance in the physical
domain we must observe people in the real world (Yngve, 1996:80).
Avoidance is seen as a deliberate strategy — different from simple ignorance.
The non-native speaker (NNS) deliberately chooses to perform one communicative
task rather than another. In order to investigate avoidance empirically, we need to
show that the NNS performs a particular behavior in L2 because s/he is deliberately
substituting an easier or more familiar behavior, intentionally avoiding the one s/he
finds difficult.
As a NNS of Arabic, I use avoidance when speaking because my articulations,
associated with certain task properties, are different from the articulations associated
with similar task properties of native speakers. So I avoid certain articulations in
favor of simpler ones so that the articulations I do make will be more similar to those
of a NS — and I won't sound so foreign. Because this is one of my avoidance
strategies, I know that there is a task property I am lacking, and [intuitively] "I know
that I know". In performing empirical linguistic research however, I have to design
an experiment demonstrating deliberate avoidance of a certain structure and
substitution of an alternate. So as to not skew the results of the experiment, we need
to observe the avoidance in as natural a setting as possible.
Take, for example the study of avoidance in an Arabic speaker learning
English as L2. Many Arabic speakers are unable to duplicate an articulation behavior
that English speakers perform, because they possess the relevant task property. "In
Arabic there is no contrast between [p] and [b] in word initial position" (Gass and
Selinker, 2001:162). In the following hypothetical assemblage we have a NS, a NNS,
and some physical props in a setting. A NS police officer, a NNS Arab male on a
street in a small midwestern town in the United States. The Arab man has just parked
1
This paper was originally written as a "position paper" as part of the course requirements for Applied
Linguistics II, May 2002. Applied Linguistic II is part of the core for the Master of Arts in English —
Concentration in ESL, at the University of Toledo, Toledo, Ohio, USA.
his car on the side of the street. The NS and NNS share certain task properties that
describe a particular act in a particular setting (parking the car). However, with the
NNS, the articulations made and the subsequent sound waves produced are not
appropriately processed by the NS. The Arab man has just parked his car in a spot
that he thinks may be prohibited. He spies the policeman and asks, "Can I bark here?"
whereupon the policeman answers, "You can bark anywhere you want but you can't
park here." To prevent this the Arab may use avoidance. He knows he lacks an
ability (a certain task property) that English speakers possess. He therefore focuses
conscious awareness on his production via the Monitor. Some of his higher task
properties are looking ahead to monitor feedback from his production. They detect
that the task properties for a [p] articulation are about to be activated. A dampening
activation prevents this and forces an alternative set of task properties that can be
activated with almost the same input activations. For example, he may avoid saying
"parking lot" and say "car lot" instead.
Because evidence shows that Arab ESL speakers are aware of this problem,
and because of the differences between English and Arabic, this case of avoidance
could be examined in light of the L1 — L2 difference. One hypothesis is that there is
a correlation between avoidance strategy and L2 proficiency. At low levels of
English proficiency, ignorance dominates — there is low avoidance and no relevant
task properties (more cases of [b] where the NS would articulate [p] and no
substitutions of other behaviors). At intermediate English proficiency, ignorance is
lower and avoidance increases — there are relevant task properties for decoding only.
Finally, at high English proficiency levels, there is a decrease in the avoidance
strategy as the Arabic NS becomes more proficient in English — there are relevant
task properties for decoding and encoding (fewer cases of the [b] articulation where
the NS produces [p] and fewer substitutions of other behaviors).
To test this hypothesis, the most valid method would be to observe the
occurrence of the [p] avoidance in a natural setting, say some public place frequented
by Arabic ESL speakers — in a fast food restaurant, or parking garage — someplace
where avoidance (with or without substitution), and L2 proficiency can be observed.
However, the reliability may be affected by difficulty in hearing or recording the
speech sounds. A possibly less valid but more reliable way to conduct the research
would be to set up a computer mediated activity where the NNS would have to
complete different reading and speaking tasks, the outcome of which would depend,
in part, on the computer's recognition of the [p] and in part upon the NNS L2
proficiency. This could be done with a game where the NNS has to complete L2
tasks and articulations to travel along a number of alternate paths. Successful
completion of a certain percentage of L2 tasks and the computer's recognition of a
certain number of [p] articulations would lead the NNS down one of several paths
toward one of several goals representing a measure of L2 proficiency and a quantity
of [p] articulations.
In an assemblage with a NS, a NNS, and props in a particular setting, consider
a task property shared by the NS and NNS. Avoidance occurs when the NNS
deliberately uses a simpler articulation than the NS to represent the same task
property. To investigate this phenomenon in a scientific way, we need evidence of
deliberation by the NNS, and we have to observe communicating individuals (NS and
NNS) in a natural setting where the appropriate task properties will activate, or not
activate certain articulations and consequent sound patterns. In this way we can
objectively evaluate our hypothesis: whether avoidance is a function of L2 speech
proficiency.
References

Gass, Susan M. & Selinker, Larry. (2001). Second language acquisition. Mahwah,
New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
O'Grady, W., M. Dobrovolsky, & M. Aronoff. (1989). Contemporary linguistics: An
introduction. New York: St. Martin's Press.
Yngve, Victor H. (1996). From grammar to science: New foundations for general
linguistics. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi