The variation problem Inter-speaker variation Variety's the very spice of life, That gives it all its flavour. Cowper, The Task Book Il, “The Time-piece’, line 606 (1785) Contrary to the view expressed by Cowper, the terms ‘variability’ variation’, and even ‘variety’ have always held certain negative connotations, In many walks of life they are, or have been for periods of their history, associated with some degree of unreliability, lowering of standards, o¢ falling wide of an accepted norm. Evidence of such is provided by a large number of dictionary definitions. The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (Onions 1973), for example, cites an 1832 biological definition of ‘variability’ as: ‘capability in plants or animals of variation or deviation from a type’. ‘variable’ is defined as: ‘liable or apt to vary of change; susceptible of variation; mutable, changeable, fluctuating, ‘uncertain’ and, relating to persons, as: ‘Apt to change from one opinion or ‘course of action to another; inconstant, fickle, unreliable’ (late Middle English). Again, ‘variation’ is defined as: ‘difference, divergence, ot discrepancy between two or more things or persons” (1637), and in biology as: ‘deviation or divergence in the structure, character, or function of an ‘organism from those typical of or usual in the species or group’ (1859). ‘Among the OED definitions of ‘variety’ is that of 1579: ‘tendency to change; fickleness’. Definitions of the verb ‘to vary’ include the words ‘diverge, divergence, disagree, dissent, inconsistent, and discrepancy’, while the late Middle English definition of this verb has a very familiar contemporary ring: ‘to differ, diverge, or depart, in respect of practice or observance (from some standard)’. (Emphasis added to items bearing derogatory associations within definitions.) Human nature, on this evidence at least, seems to have a strong tendency to favour conformity to standards, uniformity, and conservatism, and to disfavour non-conformity, diversity, and change. Because language is so closely bound up with human identity and attitudes, itis inevitable that we should commonly encounter among speakers of standard English{es)26 The Phonology of English as an International Language strongly held and deeply entrenched convictions as to the superiority 4 language which adheres to established linguistic norms and the inferiori of language which departs from them. When Jean Aitchison was so bold to express, in her BBC Reith Lectures in 1996, the view now accepted by most linguists that language variation and change are natural process rather than symptoms of degeneration and decay, she received. many outraged responses from the general public. The following, quoted in ai article by Aitchison herself in The Times Higher Education Supplement, 1 typical example: ‘Madam, how dare you distort, desecrate and defile the English language as you did in your recent Reith lecture’ (15 March 1996 . The following yeas, John Honey maintained that ‘standard English i not merely one variety among many, but instead derives its value from a of qualities which are nor shared by other, non-standard dialects’ (1997: 5) He followed this up with an appearance on the BBC2 programme Oldies i December 1997, where he announced that ‘we’ now know for certain that some three or four dialects of English are intrinsically superior in quality ta all the others. This sort of view is evident in the discrimination against speakers of English with certain regional accents that is stil rife in the and USA in job interview: situations (see pages 13-14). And L2 variation i the target of still stronger prejudice, even in the usually progressive Guardian newspaper. For example, in his review of the BBC2 programme The Ballad of Yoko and Jobn, Adam Sweeting claims, with reference to the (admiteedly Japanese-) English of Yoko Ono, that ‘the significance of a rare interview with Yoko was dissipated by the difficulty of deciphering he mauling of the English language’ (Supplement, 7 January 1998: 195 emphasis added). The problem, though, is not simply that many speakers of standard) English favour linguistic conservatism and uniformity. It is compounded by the fact that although they may experience variation as an intra-speaker phenomenon in their own Li use, it is not something they consciously recognize, particularly in relation to pronunciation. Yet this variation in pronunciation, morphology, syntax, and lexis is apparently ‘so acute that the same individual, playing various social roles, may frequently display forms of standard and non-standard Englishes in different contexts’ (Brown et al, 1994: 154), Patterned variation is ‘a ubiquitous characteristic of the contemporary language ... rather than merely a marginal phenomenon’, ‘language is inherently variable, and variant choices carry clear social meanings’ (Milroy 1994: 167). This applies, as Milroy points out, especially to the speech channel and, more particularly, at the phonological level, where the standardization process is least successful. However, where pronunciation is concerned, many L1 language teachers regard with suspicion, and ‘lay’ speakers interpret as criticism, any suggestion that they ‘employ such variation in their own specch. On the other hand, while the majority of L1 English speakers are not:‘The variation problem 1: Inter-speaker variation 27. sensitive to their own inttra-speaker variations, they are quick to notice the inter-speaker variations of L2 speakers. These they interpret as monolithic deviations from the ‘rightful’ Li standard, and do not appreciate the significance of the variability. Again, this is particularly true of pronuncia- tion where it reflects the majority view of speakers of any L1 accent, not oly of those who speak the standard prestige variety. In the field of second language acquisition, where authorities are well aware of the synchronic variation in L2 speech, similar attitudes surface to some extent in the use of terms like “free variation’ and ‘systematic variation’ (cf. Ellis 1994) to denote variation in grammatical correctness in the target language. Thus, grammatical variation in interlanguage (IL), both between L2 and L1 speakers (inter-speaker variation) and within the speech of an individual speaker (intra-speaker variation), is often viewed by the experts as something to be explained in order to reduce and, preferably, eradicate it. However, two concepts hitherto unrecognized in EFL, but fundamental to international uses of English, will emerge from this and the following chapters. Firstly, that of acceptable L2 inter-speaker variation: while inter- speaker phonological variation can certainly impede communication in EIL, particularly in interlanguage talk (ILT, it is no longer appropriate to regard all such variation from the L1 as automatically deviant. Much of it comprises acceptable regional variation on a par with that which we find among L1 accents of English (where, incidentally, inter-speaker variation can also present an obstacle to intelligibility). It should go without saying that an L2 speaker of English who has attained BES status (and whose production cannot therefore be considered an IL) does not exhibit ‘deviant’ pronunciation, but rather L2 regional variation, along with some degree of variation in standardness of the type exhibited by L1 speakers. It is at the NBES level, where speakers still retain ILs, that the phonological and phonetic forms that occur can be judged for ‘correctness’. And, from a study of the types of inter-speaker variation occurring in ILT and theit effects on intelligibility, we will be able to establish later on (Chapter 6) which variants are acceptable as regional ones and which are not. Thence ‘we will be able to redefine the concept of phonological acceptability for EIL and consider the implications for pedagogy and assessment. The second, and possibly still more fundamental—and_surprising— concept for EIL, is that of beneficial intra-speaker variation. By employing, accommodative processes, speakers may vary their pronunciation in such way that their phonological variation constitutes a solution rather than a problem, as we will see both here in relation to same-L1 and different-L1 interlocutors, and in the following chapter in relation to different task types. But before considering why and how this is s0, we will need to look more closely at these two types of IL variation, inter-speaker (this chapter) and intra-speaker (Chapter 3), in order to examine the ways in which they operate and to assess their effects on intelligibility.28 The Phonology of English as an International Language Inter-speaker variation 12 inter-speaker variation is the type of variation with which most people LE ‘anlar. Essentially, ie involves the transfer of features of he particular {Lt onto the production (and, of course, reception) af ake target language.! Icis most noticeable phonologically, where the resulting IL accent tends to iole L2 group of speakers in the collective mind exposure to the ILs conce will later become clear) dyads, Worryingly, if Trudgills (1998) assessment Cee developing Enact, 8 correct, while homogeneity is on the increase among World Englishes at the lexical and grammatical levels, the ap is widening at the phonological level. Hitherto, 12 inter-speaker sransfer, has bi substantial suectit OF the USA), although the USA represents or akwe gubstantial minority than does Britain And in view GPa close links bergen accent and personal and group identity ther wece discussed in the could be aptes the need for such redefinition of phonologieal correctness could be said to amount to a moral obligation, Medgyes argues that ‘there ar there are countries where English and a lot more, if dialects and soci 340). I doubt, though, that he int Boes'. We are still faced with the task of dist intetTanguage, whose speaker remains atthe evel of ax Nive (non-bilingual finals speaker: see Chapter 1) and an Ell. regional variety, whose speaker has progressed to BES (bilingual English speaker) status, while—in allThe variation problem 1: Inter-speaker variation 29 likelihood—retaining numerous phonological and phonetic features of the 11, which will distinguish her speech from that of BESs from other L2 “equal varieties. This is because, as is widely acknowledged, L2 varieties of English differ most noticeably in their pronunciation. The crucial challenge for FIL phonological research, then, is to identify those areas in which differences among the manifold international varieties of English (including 1 varieties) are benign and those in which they pose a potential threat to international intelligibility, particularly for those who remain NBESs, and whose interactions thus remain at the level of interlanguage talk. Having accomplished this, we will be in a far stronger position to make claims on behalf of L2 regional norms. We may also be able to identify within the L2 varieties common phonological features necessary for adoption by L1 speakers of English when they themselves engage in international communication. It is conceivable that such features will ultimately become formalized within a new international variety, such as the “World Standard Spoken English’ (WSSE), predicted by Crystal (1997: 138), and/or lead to a redefinition of the concept of standard English, such that itis able to embrace ‘divergent’ 12 features. (See Ahulu 1997, who argues strongly and convincingly in favour of the latter move, though he is admittedly referring to grammar in general rather than phonology in particular). These developments are especially plausible where large numbers of L2 varieties share the same non- LI phonological features, such as /0/ and /9/ substitutions or avoidance of weak forms. It is important, if English is to have an international future, that we find out what the L2 varieties have in common and then build on this information in pedagogy (for the expression of similar views, see Ufomata 1990; Sure 1992; Bhatia 1997). Tn fact, it seems thar the latter process has already begun. Local 12 English norms are emerging for the first time, or at least being offered professional support, in regions where the language has a strong international function as well as an intranational one, such as Kenya, Sierra Leone, South Africa, and, to some extent, Europe. Experts from these and other L2 English backgrounds have started putting forward strong ‘arguments for the right of their local variety of English to be norm-setting rather than norm-dependent: see Sure (1992) for the claim that Kenyan English should be the standard against which Kenyan learners’ English performance is measured; Berns (1995) on the nativizing process among Enropean varieties of English and the possibility of a new institutionalized norm-setting variety, “European English’; Conteh-Morgan (1997): on the nativization process of English in Sierra Leone; Hibbert and Makoni (1997) fon arguments against standard English as the norm for South African Englishes. Perhaps situations such as the following, described by an ‘Austrian teacher of English in Vienna, will be hard to find ten years or so from now: