Distribución de los tiempos de cálculo durante la ejecución de la aplicación

As noted above (§3.2.2) the reorganisation of constraints on a given variable in the context of its transference from a substrate variety into a creole has been termed

‘transformation under transfer’ (Meyerhoff, 2002; 2009a). The tendency for some degree of transformation of underlying constraints has also been noted in the acquisition of sociolinguistic variables (discussed in §3.2.1.2 above). As an observed feature of transfer (both in terms of creole formation and second language acquisition), the question naturally arises: what drives such transformations? Meyerhoff (2009a:313) suggests that:

26 _{This wording is borrowed from Walker and Sidnell (2011: 40) who use this framing to explore a somewhat different}

case of linguistic variability: whether community norms of language use across multiple sites on the Caribbean island of Bequia constitute separate village lects, or a single complex Island variety. While the context is different, the analytic ‘problem’ has obvious similarities.

the process of transferring—or replicating more generally—patterns from the model to the replica language may be sufficiently cognitively demanding that speakers cannot replicate (or perhaps do not care if they replicate) the linguistic details of the model in the replica language.

This quote specifically refers to situations where the replica language is a creole, and as such depicts non-replicating norms developing across a ‘in-group’ community of

speakers as the new creole emerges. When this explanation for transformation is applied to SLA contexts, it must be noted that learners have less agency regarding the extent to which they can ultimately settle on transformed structures: if they want to be

comprehensible to native speakers, they must ultimately replicate target usage. To the extent that some transformations (in the ‘interlanguage’ grammar) may prevail, these should not significantly impede communication and meaning making with native speakers. In this way, L2 learners are likely to experience a specific pressure to

continually revise transformed structures in a way that might not apply to participants in community-wide creole development.

When we consider the factors that shape transformation across such different linguistic contexts, additional possible explanations for transformation arise. In her examination of the global diffusion of quotative be like, Buchstaller (2014:117) observes that while a surface form may be quite easily borrowed, the underlying social and linguistic

constraints are subject to more complex determinants. Specifically: 1) the “functional equilibrium within the accommodating system”, such that new forms generally have to fit within (and thus disturb to some degree) extant functional systems, and so are shaped by what already exists locally; 2) “social and ideological factors…[which are] arbitrary, conventionally determined, and highly culture specific”, such that new forms are deployed to local ends, and 3) global forces of change that “apply cross-linguistically to forms which share the same semantic-pragmatic constraints”, or in other words, universal trajectories of linguistic change. Taken together, these components can to some degree account for differences between resultant variable systems across the post- diffusion landscape.

In expanding the study of quotative be like to examine second language learners, Davydova & Buchstaller (2015:461) found that German learners with prolonged

exposure to English actually “closely [match] native speaker grammars”. In isolating an instance where transformation under transfer has not occurred—a negative case—the authors consider several further factors which might illuminate transformation

processes as a whole. Firstly, unlike the cases of diffusion of be like into existing English varieties (which is subject to the multiple factors discussed in the preceding paragraph) the German learners taking part in the study are “acquiring an entirely new linguistic system by trying to REPLICATE established patterns in the [English] input” (Davydova & Buchstaller 2015). Secondly, exposure and learning context plays a role in mediating the kinds of constraints that can be transferred. For example:

high context or “tacit knowledge” (Meyerhoff and Niedzielski 2002), such as the social meaning of [be like]…does not transfer well without sustained face-to-face interaction. (Davydova & Buchstaller 2015: 453)

In their study of Polish adolescents in Edinburgh and London (described above) Schleef et al (2011) also note that, in addition to possible reduction of cognitive capacity post- childhood, adolescent and adult learners do not “have access the same depth and breadth of information about the nature of a variable that an L1 learner

does…perhaps…simply because they get much less exposure to the language than little children do before they (must) start producing” (226). So while transformation of L2 structures is evidenced in early L2 learning, both motivation to replicate L2 norms and prolonged exposure are proposed as necessary (thought not sufficient) conditions for the gradual amelioration of transformed structures into target structures. The

motivation to ultimately replicate (rather than transform) target structures distinguishes L2 learners from participants in creole formation, and members of speech communities experiencing diffusion.

A further consideration is that of the variable itself. Are some variables more transferable (i.e. learnable without interim transformations, when the motivation is there to do so), or conversely, transformable than others? Echoing some of the research covered in the previous chapter, Davydova & Buchstaller (2015) argue that the range of evidence amassed within SLA research regarding the learnability of a (usually

categorical) L2 feature, applies to variable features as well. In particular they point to frequency, high form-function correlation or ‘schematicity’, ‘iconicity’ and

wholesale transfer. For variables which don’t meet these criteria, the result is “constraint systems that are significantly altered and/or reinterpreted” (p463).

This discussion of transferability has so far related to transfer in the context of creole formation (‘transfer’ of substrate features into the creole), and L2 acquisition of

sociolinguistic variation (‘transfer’ of target features into the interlanguage). Somewhat as yet uncharted territory for exploration of the principle of ‘transformation under transfer’ is how it might apply to SLA more broadly (i.e. type 1 acquisition) and, in particular, what does transfer and transformation look like in creole-standard language acquisition contexts?

I have outlined above (§3.3.1) the case for taking the L1 as the starting point or model for L2 acquisition when these two varieties are typologically close. As such this thesis will make direct, quantitative comparisons between the L1 and the L2 language use of a single group of participants, rather than between a L2 group and native speakers of that language (though there will also be qualitative comparisons to SAE and adult Alyawarr English). Therefore, the transfer or transformation of the L1 (into the L2) is more relevant than the transformation of ‘target’ native speaker norms into the L2. This difference is depicted in Figure 3-2. The squares represent the varieties produced by language learners (i.e. their first language ‘L1’ and their ‘L2’ learner language or

interlanguage produced on the way to full, target-like proficiency). The circle represents the ‘target’ of that learning (i.e. native speaker data).

Figure 3-2: Different comparisons of the linguistic repertoire of language learners

L1 (AlyE) L2 (SAE) T2 (Native speaker SAE)

This thesis, then, is an opportunity to explore the principle of ‘transformation under transfer’ in a novel, though hopefully complementary, way. As above, features that are transformed from the L1 into the L2 are the features in the process of acquisition: but here transformation evidences the nature of this change in process, rather than ‘noise’ in the system (per Schleef et al’s (2011) conceptualisation of transformation as a by-

product of task complexity). Conversely, features that are transferred into the L2 without any transformation now represent zero acquisition, rather than complete acquisition (to the extent that these features are contrastive in both AlyE and SAE). As we will see, in exploring factors that impact on transformation of a L1 variable into its more target like L2 pattern, the discussion will largely focus on a comparison of the variables themselves, and what makes one more ‘learnable’ that the other.