Acquiring a Variable Structure: An Interlanguage Analysis of Second Language Mood Use in Spanish

Language Learning ISSN 0023-8333

Acquiring a Variable Structure: An

Interlanguage Analysis of Second Language

Mood Use in Spanish

Aarnes GudmestadVirginia Polytechnic Institute and State University

This investigation connects issues in second language (L2) acquisition to topics inquantitative sociolinguistics by exploring the relationship between native-speaker (NS)and L2 variation. It is the first large-scale analysis of L2 mood use (the subjunctive-indicative contrast) in Spanish. It applies variationist findings on the range of linguisticand extralinguistic factors (form regularity, semantic category, time reference, hypo-theticality, and task) shown to influence NSs’ mood use to an interlanguage analysis ofL2 development and shows that analyses of frequency and predictors provide reveal-ing details about how learners acquire the ability to vary their use of verbal moods inSpanish. Variationism, it is concluded, can foster rich descriptions and explanations ofinterlanguage and its evolution.

Keywords mood distinction; subjunctive; variation; interlanguage; Spanish; L2development

Introduction

In second language acquisition (SLA), the notion of communicative compe-tence tends to include grammatical and sociolinguistic competences, insofar astargetlike ability in a second language (L2) entails using grammar in linguis-tically and socially appropriate ways (e.g., Canale & Swain, 1980). Researchon second language (L2) variation has contributed to this understanding ofcommunicative competence by evidencing that interlanguage varies accord-ing to linguistic and social contexts and that this variation changes over time(e.g., Bayley & Preston, 1996; Hansen Edwards, 2011; Mougeon, Nadasdi, &Rehner, 2010; Regan, Howard, & Lemee, 2009).

Correspondence concerning this article should be sent to Aarnes Gudmestad, Virginia Polytech-

nic Institute and State University, Department of Foreign Languages and Literatures, 319 Major

Williams Hall, Blacksburg, VA 24061. Internet: [email protected]

Language Learning XX:X, XXXX 2012, pp. 1–30 1

C© 2012 Language Learning Research Club, University of MichiganDOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9922.2012.00696.x

Gudmestad Acquiring a Variable Structure

In addition to expanding knowledge of communicative competence, it canbe argued that variationism remains compatible with current perspectives inSLA and with fundamental goals in the field. This congruence is evident in thedefinition of the pivotal term “interlanguage” (Selinker, 1972), which considersan L2 developing system to be both dynamic and systematic, characteristicsthat have received much attention in variationist research on first languages(e.g., Chambers, Trudgill, & Schilling-Estes, 2002). Moreover, investigation ofthe conception of interlanguage is guided by two general objectives: descriptionand explanation of L2 acquisition (e.g., R. Ellis, 1997, 2008). As will be shownin the present study, the tools and perspectives called upon in variationism canprovide compelling evidence with respect to both objectives.

With regard to the goal of description, variationism provides rich descrip-tions of interlanguage through its “focus on linguistic outcomes of the [acquisi-tion] process” (Tarone, 2007, p. 837), which results in detailed characterizationsof the variability present as the relationship between forms and functionsevolves (Mitchell & Myles, 2004). In terms of the second goal of explanation,R. Ellis (1997) writes that SLA aims to “[identify] the external and internalfactors that account for why learners acquire an L2 in the way they do” (p. 4).He specifies input as one external factor that must be explained. Variationismaddresses this issue by first providing empirical evidence for what the inputlearners receive looks like; these data come from analyses of native-speaker(NS) language use, teacher talk, or pedagogical materials to which learners areexposed (e.g., Mougeon et al., 2010). Then, how learners respond to variableinput needs to be assessed. Variationism can help accomplish this task by at-tempting to explain L2 acquisition through the identification of linguistic andnonlinguistic features that account for the use and change in use for a givengrammatical structure, and by illustrating how and when these internal andexternal factors predict use as learners acquire an L2. Examples of variation-ist research that offer descriptions and explanations of L2 acquisition includeplural marking in English (e.g., Young, 1991), nous/on ‘we’ in French (e.g.,Reganet al., 2009), and the copula in Spanish (e.g., Geeslin, 2005).

The current study aims to link the overarching goals of description andexplanation in SLA with the ways in which variationism contributes to meetingthem, by expanding the linguistic phenomena that have already been investi-gated in the research area of L2 variation to a large-scale investigation of mooddistinction in Spanish. This linguistic structure is a well-suited target of studybecause NSs’ mood use in Spanish is variable (e.g., Silva-Corvalan, 1994),so learners must acquire this variation to attain nativelike use of the struc-ture and, consequently, further their communicative competence. Moreover,



because research examining the development of mood distinction is limited(e.g., Kornuc, 2004), the present study seeks to broaden the populations, mood-choice contexts, and explanatory features investigated in order to advance theunderstanding of the acquisition process of this linguistic phenomenon.

Background

L2 VariationThe origin of L2 variation research is in sociolinguistics (e.g., Labov, 1972),and the goal of variationism is well known: to identify internal and externalfeatures that predict the frequency of use of a variant “in an attempt to accountfor the status of the variant in the speech community, its usefulness as an indi-cation of linguistic change, and its position and shape in the rule system of theindividual” (Preston, 1989, p. 194). In line with this goal, investigations on L2variation demonstrate that interlanguage development of linguistic phenom-ena is mediated by internal and external factors (e.g., Tarone, 2007). Further-more, this line of inquiry often distinguishes between two types of variation:Type 1 variation that exists between targetlike and nontargetlike forms andType 2 variation that occurs between targetlike forms only (Rehner, 2002). ForFrench, Rehner offers the nontargetlike use of a le ‘to/at the,’ as opposed to thetargetlike contraction au, as an example of Type 1 variation and the presence orabsence of the pre-verbal negative particle ne (both nativelike) as an exampleof Type 2 variation (p. 15).

As a means of explaining the acquisition of variation, Preston (2000) pro-poses what he terms a psycholinguistic model for interlanguage variation com-prised of three levels. Level 1 governs social variation, Level 2 constrainslinguistic variation, and at Level 3 variation is controlled by time. Each levelexplains why learners use one variant instead of another. Level 1 encompassesexternal factors such as sex of the learner (e.g., Mougeon et al., 2010) and taskcomplexity and perceived difficulty (e.g., Robinson, 2001). Just as the originof variation and change among NSs is often a reflection of linguistic processes(e.g., Preston, 1989), linguistic factors are central to L2 development. Whilelearners do exhibit Level 1 variation, their L2 development is influenced to alarger extent by the linguistic context (Level 2) (e.g., Geeslin, 2005). Finally,variation occurs across time; Level 3 shows how the role of internal and exter-nal features changes during acquisition (e.g., Tarone & Liu, 1995). The currentstudy will consider all three levels and will aim to show how analyzing therelationship between these levels can help to explain the L2 development ofmood distinction in Spanish.

3 Language Learning XX:X, XXXX 2012, pp. 1–30


Mood Distinction in SpanishSpanish makes mood distinctions1 primarily in dependent clauses. It is oftenexplained that semantic triggers in the independent clause influence use (Butt &Benjamin, 2004). Traditionally, the indicative marks triggers such as assertion,definiteness, and habitual actions, whereas the subjunctive marks triggers suchas volition, uncertainty, and indefiniteness. The past subjunctive can occur withsi ‘if’ clauses for hypothetical or nonexistent situations and can be used tomitigate speech. In independent clauses, mood distinctions can be made afterexpressions such as ojala ‘I hope’ and quizas ‘maybe.’ The main morphologicaldifference between moods lies in the verb ending. Examples of mood distinctionin Spanish are available in Appendix S1 of the Supporting Information online.

Research on mood distinction in Spanish is diverse, including descrip-tive accounts of the subjunctive-indicative alternation and empirical work in-formed by various theoretical perspectives (e.g., Bosque, 1990; Lunn, 1989;Montrul, 2007; Perez-Leroux, 1998). Specifically with regard to sociolinguisticinvestigations, there is widely attested variation in mood use and evidence forlanguage change toward an increased use of the indicative among NSs (e.g.,Silva-Corvalan, 1994). In addition to evidencing variable mood use, this bodyof research identifies internal and external variables (e.g., the linguistic variablehypotheticality) that predict NS use (for a review see Gudmestad, 2010), whileat the same time characterizing input learners may receive.

One general finding that emerges from L2 research on mood distinctionis that it is a late-acquired grammatical structure (e.g., Geeslin & Gudmestad,2008). This observation may be due to various reasons. For one, NSs are vari-able in their use of verbal moods (Silva-Corvalan, 1994), which signifies thatinput is variable, so the evidence learners receive does not categorically showrelationships between form and function. Further, compared to the indicative,the subjunctive is relatively infrequent in input (Terrell, Baycroft, & Perrone,1987), which means that learners have fewer opportunities to integrate it intotheir developing system (cf. N. Ellis, 2002). And thirdly, a core learnabilityissue of mood distinction is perhaps its multilayered nature. There are syntac-tic, morphological, semantic, and discourse-pragmatic components of mooddistinction, and learners must acquire each linguistic property to use verbalmoods in a targetlike way. While the range of research on L2 Spanish moodis acknowledged (Borgonovo, Bruhn de Garavito, & Prevost, 2005; Farley,2004; Leow, 1995), the following discussion is guided by the linguistic com-ponents of mood, which largely coincide with the range of factors examinedin sociolinguistics (cf. Gudmestad, 2010), and the role they may play in L2development.



Because the subjunctive primarily occurs in subordinate clauses, learnersmust be able to comprehend and produce complex sentences in order to makemood distinctions. Previous research suggests that learners acquire the abilityto produce complex sentences before their use of verbal moods is nativelike(e.g., Collentine, 1995) and that learners’ production of nontargetlike syntacticstructures does not necessarily impede the comprehension of their utterances(Terrell et al., 1987). While the ability to produce sentences with subordinateclauses is a prerequisite to targetlike subjunctive use, learners do not associatesubordinate clauses solely with the subjunctive, so that the indicative is stillused frequently in dependent clauses (Lubbers Quesada, 1998).

Various investigations demonstrate the importance of categories of seman-tic triggers in making mood distinctions for learners. Collentine’s (1995) con-trolled oral-production data revealed that intermediate-level learners producedthe subjunctive at different rates according to semantic categories; use washighest in contexts of influence (reports of commands and volition), followedby doubt and denial, and, lastly, comment (evaluation and reaction). LubbersQuesada (1998) found that the semantic categories of futurity and volitionpromoted subjunctive use in interviews. Gudmestad (2006) showed that vo-lition was the only semantic category that predicted subjunctive selection forthe advanced-level learners. Kornuc’s (2004) results indicated that subjunc-tive use and semantic category were significantly related to academic level.In comparison to the second-semester learners, the fourth-semester learners’accuracy rates were significantly higher in contexts of volition and commenton written and oral tasks, as well as in contexts of uncertainty on written tasks.Geeslin and Gudmestad’s (2008) analysis of data from a written contextualizedtask and an interview demonstrated that semantic category was a predictor ofmood distinction for graduate-level learners. The pattern of mood distinctionwas similar on both tasks: Subjunctive use was highest with the category ofvolition, followed by comment, uncertainty, other (a miscellaneous category),and, lastly, assertion.

Learners are also faced with the acquisition challenge of acquiring sub-junctive morphology. Studies examining the role of form regularity, whichhave focused only on the present subjunctive, have suggested that there aredifferences between regular and irregular verbs. Collentine (1997) argued thatthe attention paid to the irregular forms by intermediate-level learners on acomputerized sentence-generation task increased the chance that the formswould be integrated into the interlanguage. Interview data from intermediate-level learners studying in Mexico revealed that the subjunctive was used morefrequently with irregular than regular verbs, so verb irregularity was one of the



linguistic features that predicted subjunctive use (Lubbers Quesada, 1998). InGudmestad (2006) irregular subjunctive verbs were the only linguistic factor topredict subjunctive selection for both intermediate- and advanced-level learnerson a written contextualized task Although these investigations suggested thatirregular verbs and the subjunctive were connected in interlanguage, it shouldbe noted that ‘irregular’ was not defined uniformly across studies. Further-more, Geeslin and Gudmestad (2008) found results that conflict with the otherinvestigations. Graduate-level learners used the subjunctive more often withregular than irregular verbs or past verbs in non-past-time discourse contextson the interview. Therefore, future studies need to clarify the role that form(ir)regularity plays in the acquisition of mood distinction.

An understanding of the relationship between discourse-level featuresand L2 mood distinction in Spanish remains limited. Gudmestad (2006) andGeeslin and Gudmestad (2008) examined the discourse-level feature of futu-rity.2 Gudmestad (2006) showed a significant relationship between subjunctiveselection and futurity, where the advanced-level learners chose the subjunctivesignificantly more in future-time discourse contexts than in non-future-timediscourse contexts. In Geeslin and Gudmestad (2008), futurity was a signif-icant predictor of mood selection for graduate-level learners on the writtencontextualized task, with the subjunctive occurring significantly more often infuture-time discourse contexts. Past-time discourse contexts were not includedin either study; including past-, present-, and future-time discourse contextsinto a single research design could enable a more detailed analysis of therelationship between time reference and mood use.

The Current Study

As shown in the review of the literature, although research on mood distinctionin L2 Spanish suggests that there is a syntactic prerequisite to most targetlikemood use and that morphological-, semantic-, and discourse-level featuresimpact development, specific issues remain unresolved. Previous work hascentered almost exclusively on traditional subjunctive contexts, which onlyprovide a partial view of the linguistic system. Mood distinction is comprised ofthe indicative and subjunctive, so a more comprehensive research design shouldaim to examine a broader assortment of contexts. A limited range of proficiencylevels has been investigated in one analysis. While various linguistic factorshave been investigated, an understanding of how they collectively relate to L2development remains unclear. The present investigation, therefore, addressedthese issues by posing the following research questions:



(1) With what frequency do learners use verbal moods and how does thisfrequency of use change cross-sectionally?

(2) Which linguistic and extralinguistic features characterize learners’ mooduse and how do these features change cross-sectionally?

(3) How do the frequency of mood use and the linguistic and extralinguisticfeatures characterizing mood use for learners and NSs compare?

Method

The three research questions in the study necessitated several methodologicaldecisions. The first consideration was to decide on which independent variablesto target, among previously examined and new linguistic variables that mayinfluence mood distinction, and how to code them. Next, it was crucial todesign production tasks that would not only yield sufficient evidence for eachindependent variable under investigation but also elicit traditional indicativecontexts. Finally, the elicitation of interlanguage variation required a largeenough sample of L2 learners of Spanish to include a wide range of proficiencylevels, and the learner data needed to be compared to NS use as well. In thisMethod section, variables and data coding, elicitation instruments and datacollection, participants, and data analysis are presented in this order.

Variables and Data CodingThe dependent variable in the present study was the verbal mood used in amood-choice context: subjunctive or nonsubjunctive. The term “nonsubjunc-tive” was used instead of “indicative” because participants used nonfinite formsin mood-choice contexts. Nonfinite forms were grouped with the indicative inorder to focus the analysis on the subjunctive, the component of mood that isacquired later. Although mood use arguably takes place whenever speakers usefinite verbs, the current study limited the use of the term “mood-choice con-text” in the following ways: verbs produced in subordinate clauses following anindependent clause expressing a meaning of a semantic category under inves-tigation and verbs following a lexical expression that conveyed a meaning ofa semantic category under investigation. Semantic category is an independentvariable discussed below.

Four linguistic and two extralinguistic independent variables were targeted.The two extralinguistic variables were straightforward: Participant group, whichcorresponded to five learner levels and one group of NSs (see the Participantssection), and task, which referred to the data-elicitation tasks (see the ElicitationInstruments and Data Collection section) and served to recognize the research



Table 1 Examples for the Categories of Form Regularity

Form-SpecificVerb Form Regular Irregular Irregular

Infinitive hablar ‘to speak’ dormir ‘to sleep’ tener ‘to have’Present indicative habla duerme tienePresent subjunctive hable duerma tengaPreterit indicative hablo durmio tuvoPast subjunctive hablara durmiera tuviera

on style and task variation in sociolinguistic and L2 research (e.g., Geeslin,2010; Schilling-Estes, 2002).3 The four linguistic variables were form regular-ity, semantic category, time reference, and hypotheticality. Each is explained inturn.

Form regularity was a word-level variable that examined the verb producedin the mood-choice context. The three categories were regular, irregular, andform-specific irregular verbs, and they are illustrated in Table 1. Regularswere verbs in which the stem of finite forms was identical to the stem ofthe infinitive or the infinitive itself. Irregulars were verbs in which the stemunderwent a vowel change in some (but not necessarily all) forms. Form-specific irregulars were verbs in which multiple forms (but not necessarilyall) had a stem that diverged from the infinitival stem. This deviation typicallyinvolved the presence of a consonant that was absent in the infinitive. It is worthnoting that the classification of categories employed here allowed for a moredetailed examination of the role of form regularity in mood distinction in L2Spanish than has been attempted previously.

Semantic category, a sentence-level variable also used to define a mood-choice context, identified the semantic category of the trigger preceding themood-choice verb. The five categories were volition (expressions of desire orhope), comment (expressions of emotion or evaluation), uncertainty (expres-sions of doubt), temporality (adverbial conjunctions of time), and assertion(expressions of certainty). These semantic categories were selected becausethey represented a range of variable use among NSs. For example, in Silva-Corvalan’s (1994) investigation of mood use among Mexican Americans, sub-junctive use was high in contexts of volition and still high but less frequent incontexts of comment; both moods were used regularly in contexts of uncertaintyand temporality; and indicative use was high in contexts of assertion.

Time reference referred to the time reference of the discourse context.The three categories were past-, present-, and future-time discourse contexts.



Time reference was pre-established at the discourse level by the tasks, notby the participants’ sentence-level language production.4 Hypotheticality wasalso determined by the task instead of the participants’ language production.The three categories were nonhypothetical (e.g., what one plans to order at arestaurant), non-past hypothetical (e.g., how one would spend money won fromthe lottery), and past hypothetical (e.g., what a vacation would have been likeif one had traveled to a different location) discourse contexts.

Elicitation Instruments and Data CollectionThree digitally recorded, oral production tasks were designed specifically forthe elicitation of mood-use contexts. Allotted completion times for each oral-elicitation task are reported below and were established after a pilot study. Anexample of each data-elicitation instrument is available in Appendix S2 in theSupporting Information online.

Task 1 was a monologic role-play that provided an opportunity for extendedlanguage production. It consisted of six scenarios, each followed by a seriesof questions. In each scenario participants imagined themselves in a role andanswered questions while pretending to speak to an imaginary person. Speakingtime for each scenario was three minutes and 45 seconds. One PowerPoint slidecontained a scenario, which automatically advanced after the allotted time.The task was written in Spanish and participants spoke only in Spanish. Eachscenario was designed to study the independent variables under investigation.The scenarios were balanced for the discourse-level variables and the questionswere designed to elicit each sentence-level semantic category.

Task 2 was a contextualized-clause-elicitation task and Task 3 acontextualized-verb-elicitation task. Both followed a similar format with aseries of contextualized items (30 segments per task) building on a single story.For Task 2 every segment was followed by the beginning part of a Spanishsentence that was integrated into the story as dialogue. After reading each seg-ment, participants read the beginning part of the Spanish sentence aloud andcompleted the sentence with a phrase that made sense with the story. Manyparticipants continued speaking after completing the sentence; these data wereincluded in the analysis. For Task 3 each segment was followed by an entireSpanish sentence that was integrated into the story as dialogue. In the mood-choice context of the sentence, an infinitival verb form was given in parentheses.Participants read aloud the sentence while providing the verb form they feltwas appropriate. For both tasks, the items were presented on a computer us-ing PowerPoint; each slide advanced automatically (40 seconds per item onTask 2, 26 seconds per item on Task 3). The story segments were balanced for



the discourse-level variables and the beginning parts of the Spanish sentenceswere balanced for semantic category. For Task 3 the infinitives included allform-regularity categories.

The current study represents the first time that these oral-elicitation taskshave been employed in the study of L2 mood use in Spanish. They werecreated because they enabled each variable under study to be investigatedsystematically. For example, the topics could be controlled so that each categoryof the discourse-level factors could be represented with enough regularity tobe studied quantitatively. Additionally, a series of tasks was utilized becausethe subjunctive is used relatively infrequently. Task 1 offered the advantage ofproviding more spontaneous data, while Tasks 2 and 3 ensured that a range ofsemantic categories and form-regularity classifications was represented.

In addition to the three oral tasks, two other instruments were used to collectmore information about the participants: A language proficiency task and abackground questionnaire. The language proficiency task had shown to be areliable measure for distinguishing proficiency levels (Woolsey, 2009) and wasused here only to confirm the division of participant groups by course level. Theactivity consisted of 11 multiple-choice items covering a range of grammaticalstructures in Spanish. Participants selected one response out of three and hadthree minutes to complete the activity. The background questionnaire asked forinformation such as age, sex, field of study, and parental education, as well asdetails on their language experiences, including exposure to Spanish and otherlanguages, coursework, foreign travel, and contact with NSs.

ParticipantsThe participants were a total of 130 adult, L2 learners of Spanish sampledfrom a large university in the United States and grouped according to previouscoursework experience in Spanish. The groupings are referred to by level forease of presentation.

Learners in Levels 1 through 4 were undergraduates. Explicit instructionof mood use had not taken place during the semester of data collection inany of the undergraduate courses at this institution before the data-elicitationtasks were administered, though participants likely had studied this structure inprevious semesters. Two intact classes of a third-semester, Spanish-languagecourse constituted Level 1 (N = 26). They were NSs of English and rangedin age from 18 to 22 years (M = 19.12 years, SD = 0.909). Twenty werefemale and 6 were male. One participant had spent a month studying abroad ina Spanish-speaking country. Level 2 (N = 35) was enrolled in a fifth-semester,Hispanic-cultures course (two intact classes). One participant was a NS of



Russian who learned English as a child, while the others were NSs of English.They ranged in age from 18 to 21 years (M = 19.0 years, SD = 0.686); 29were female and 6 were male. One participant had studied abroad in a Spanish-speaking country for one month. Levels 3 and 4 were comprised of learnersin content courses beyond the fifth-semester of the program. Two intact, third-year courses and two intact, fourth-year courses participated.5 Level 3 (N =26) ranged in age from 18 to 23 years (M = 20.35 years, SD = 1.441); 14 werefemale and 12 were male. One participant was a NS of English and German; therest were NSs of English. Six learners had studied abroad in a Spanish-speakingcountry (M = 3 months, range = 1–6 months, SD = 1.79). Level 4 (N = 23)ranged in age from 20 to 24 years (M = 21.52 years, SD = 1.201); 17 werefemale and 6 were male. Two participants were NSs of two languages (Englishand Dutch, English and Mandarin); the others were NSs of English. Sixteenhad studied abroad in a Spanish-speaking country (M = 3.88 months, range =1.5–10 months, SD = 2.71).6

Level 5 participants (N = 20) were graduate-level nonnative speakers(NNSs) of Spanish; 19 of them were instructors of undergraduate Spanishcourses and 1 worked as a graduate assistant. Two of these NNSs had alreadycompleted a graduate degree and 18 were graduate students at the time of datacollection. They ranged in age from 22 to 47 (M = 30.15 years, SD = 4.184),were evenly divided between sexes, and were NSs of English. All but one hadstudied or worked in a Spanish-speaking country (M = 19.31 months, range =1.5 months to 5 years and 1.5 months, SD = 16.51).

Data from NSs of Spanish (N = 20) reported in Gudmestad (2010) serveas a means of assessing targetlike use; this NS group represents an empiricalbenchmark for mood use and an indirect measure of the input learners receive.They ranged in age from 25 to 42 years (M = 30.15 years, SD = 6.175)and were evenly divided between sexes. Their places of origin (Argentina,Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, Guatemala, Mexico,Peru, Spain, and Puerto Rico) echo the diverse input learners may receive,either abroad or during their educational experiences in the United States. Theywere graduate students, and 17 had experience teaching undergraduate Spanishcourses. They had spent an average of 4.84 years in an English-speaking country(range = 1.75–14.5 years, SD = 2.84).

As mentioned, a language proficiency test was used to confirm the ability ofcourse level to distinguish among proficiency levels. The descriptive results areshown in Table 2. A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) revealed significantdifferences, F(5, 144) = 45.822, p < .001, and a Post Hoc Scheffe showed thetest distinguished well between groups with two exceptions: The mean scores



Table 2 Language Proficiency Test Scores

Group N M SD Minimum Maximum

Level 1 26 4.96 1.64 2 8Level 2 35 7.51 2.17 2 11Level 3 26 8.96 2.31 4 11Level 4 23 10.00 1.00 7 11Level 5 20 10.75 0.55 9 11NSs 20 10.80 0.41 10 11

Note. The highest possible score is 11.

for Levels 3 and 4 were not significantly different from each other, and themean scores for Level 4, Level 5, and NS group were not significantly differentfrom each other. The mean score for Level 3 was significantly different fromthe mean scores for Level 5 and the NSs, thus identifying differences betweenLevels 3 and 4. The failure to distinguish between levels among the moreproficient speakers is likely due to the ceiling effect for the test; the averagesfor Levels 4 and 5 and the NSs were close to the top score. Nevertheless,this language proficiency test corroborates the division of proficiency level byprevious coursework experience.

Data AnalysisA quantitative data analysis was conducted using the Statistical Package for theSocial Sciences 15.0 in three stages for each participant group: the frequency ofverbal moods (measured by cross-tabulations and chi-square [χ2] tests), a mul-tivariate regression analysis, and separate cross-tabulations for the independentvariables shown to predict mood use in the multivariate regression analysis.Aggregate results are reported because research has shown that individual andgroup language use is influenced by similar features (e.g., Bayley & Langman,2004).7

First, cross-tabulations showed the frequency of verbal moods used by eachgroup, and χ2 tests determined if the frequencies of use across groups weresignificantly different from each other. These tests enabled the examination ofdevelopment of subjunctive frequency, as indicated by increased productionacross proficiency levels using cross-sectional data, and also served to assesstargetlike use by comparing learner production to NS use.

Second, following previous research investigating L2 variation (e.g.,Berdan, 1996), a multivariate regression analysis was conducted. Originat-ing in sociolinguistics, this test has been shown to be a powerful tool for



Table 3 Frequency of Mood Use

Nonsubjunctive Subjunctive

Group N # % # % Total

Level 1 26 1468 95.9 62 4.1 1530Level 2 35 2232 88.2 298 11.8 2530Level 3 26 1653 76.1 520 23.9 2173Level 4 23 1720 78.8 464 21.2 2184Level 5 20 1056 46.2 1229 53.8 2285NSs 20 1279 47.3 1425 52.7 2704

understanding and predicting L2 use and development because it could re-flect the dynamic nature of interlanguage and enable researchers to analyzesimultaneously linguistic and extralinguistic factors conditioning acquisition.A logistic regression allowed the examination of all independent variablesunder investigation together and served to determine which factors predictedmood use collectively for each participant group. A binary forward stepwiseregression was performed for each participant group. This logistic regressionanalyzed all independent variables in relation to each other and selected thevariables that best predicted the dependent variable. This type of regressionadded an independent variable to the equation in each step of the analysis.The addition of new variables improved the predictive power of the regressionmodel. Variables that did not improve the predictive power of mood use werenot included in the model produced by the test. The significant predictors werecompared across L2 groups in order to gain an understanding of development,and learners’ regression models were compared to the NS model to determinewhether the learners were using verbal moods in targetlike ways.

Finally, a cross-tabulation was conducted for every independent variablethat improved the predictive power of each regression model. These cross-tabulations provided details about the distribution of mood use across thecategories of all relevant factors.

Results

Frequency of Verbal MoodsThe cross-tabulations and χ2 tests provided information on the frequency ofmood use. The cross-tabulations presented in Table 3 show the number of tokensand the percentage of subjunctive and nonsubjunctive forms used in mood-choice contexts for each participant group. A χ2 test revealed a significant



relationship between frequency of verbal moods and participant group whenall groups were considered (χ2 = 2295.038, df = 5, Cramer’s V = 0.414,p < .001).

From Level 1 to Level 3, Table 3 shows a gradual increase in the frequencyof subjunctive forms accompanied by a decrease in nonsubjunctive forms.Nevertheless, the rate of subjunctive use for the first three groups was low(growing from 4.1% to 23.9%). Between Levels 3 and 4, a small decreasein subjunctive use is discernable (see Table 3). An additional χ2 test betweenthese two groups revealed a statistical difference (χ2 = 4.490, df = 1, Cramer’sV = 0.032, p = .034), indicating that Level 3 used the subjunctive slightly butsignificantly more frequently than Level 4. After Level 4, subjunctive useincreased again at Level 5 (growing from 21.2% to 53.8%). The rate of useobserved by the graduate-level NNSs at Level 5 was similar to the NS ratesreported here from Gudmestad (2010) (see Table 3). A follow-up χ2 test showedthat Level 5 and the NS group were not significantly different in their use ofverbal moods (χ2 = 0.586, d f = 1, Cramer’s V = 0.011, p = .444).

Multivariate Regression AnalysisAll independent variables (except for participant group) were analyzed in onestatistical model to determine which features predicted mood use for eachparticipant group. The results for the six binary stepwise logistic regressiontests—one per participant group including the benchmark results for the NSsfrom Gudmestad (2010)—are summarized in Table 4. An X represents thevariables included in the regression model and the asterisks specify the statis-tical significance of the variables. The output of the six statistical tests for theregressions is shown in Table 5.

Table 4 Significant Predictors of Mood Use

Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 NSsVariable (N = 26) (N = 35) (N = 26) (N = 23) (N = 20) (N = 20)

Form regularity X∗∗ X∗∗∗ X∗∗

Semantic category X∗∗∗ X∗∗∗ X∗∗∗ X∗∗∗ X∗∗∗

Time reference X∗∗ X∗∗∗ X∗∗∗ X∗∗∗

Hypotheticality X∗∗∗ X∗∗∗ X∗∗∗ X∗∗∗

Task X∗ X∗∗∗ X∗∗∗ X∗∗∗ X∗∗∗ X∗∗∗

Note. X = variable included in the model.∗p < 0.05. ∗∗p < 0.01. ∗∗∗p < 0.001.



Table 5 Details of Statistical Tests for the Logistic-Regression Models

Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 NSsStatistical Tests (N = 26) (N = 35) (N = 26) (N = 23) (N = 20) (N = 20)

χ 2 11.968 120.232 290.029 315.483 1276.088 1544.139Df 2 6 10 12 12 12P ≤0.01 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001−2 Log likelihood 507.015 1713.976 2101.454 1943.603 1878.484 2196.514Nagelkerke R2 0.027 0.090 0.187 0.209 0.572 0.581Percent predicted 95.9 88.2 75.9 79.6 83.6 82.3

Comparing regression models (see Table 4) reveals differences in predic-tors across participant groups. The extralinguistic variable task was the solepredictor of mood use for Level 1, and for Level 2 task and semantic categorypredicted use. Task, semantic category, time reference, and hypotheticalitypredicted Level 3’s use of verbal moods. The regression models for Level 4,Level 5, and the NSs were similar; for all three groups, mood use was predictedby task, semantic category, time reference, hypotheticality, and form regularity.It is worth noting that the number of factors influencing learners’ use of verbalmoods increased as proficiency level increased.

The percentage of mood use that each regression model predicts (seeTable 5) is useful in making comparisons across groups. The regression modelfor Level 1 predicted 95.9 percent of their mood use. Although this percentageis high, Level 1 produced the subjunctive 4.1 percent of the time. The highpercent predicted may be due to the fact that there was little variability in theiruse; they used nonsubjunctive forms almost exclusively. The remaining regres-sion models predicted a lower percentage of mood use than Level 1, rangingbetween 75.9 percent and 88.2 percent. This former lowest rate of prediction,observed for Level 3, suggests that the variables in the regression model forLevel 3 predicted mood use less consistently than the variables in the regressionmodels for Levels 2, 4, and 5 and the NSs.

Cross-Tabulations for Significant Predictors of Mood UseWhile the comparison of regression models revealed that more variables pre-dicted mood use as L2 proficiency level increased and that the more advancedlearners (Levels 4 and 5) responded to the same variables as the NSs, thedescriptive cross-tabulations enhance the interpretation of the regression mod-els, because they detail how the variables influenced speakers’ mood use.In this section, figures representing these cross-tabulations accompany the



Figure 1 Percentage of Subjunctive Use according to Semantic Category.

comparisons of the predictors. Each figure shows the percentage of subjunctiveuse within each category of an independent variable. The percentages for eachparticipant group are separate, and, if a variable was not included in the regres-sion model for a participant group, subjunctive use for that group is excludedfrom the figure. The percentages of nonsubjunctive use are not provided be-cause they can be inferred from the figure. Tables that correspond to the figurespresented below and that provide the specific percentage and token-count val-ues are available in Appendix S3 in the Supporting Information online. Dataexamples that illustrate how the mood-choice contexts were coded are alsooffered in Appendix S4.

Beginning with linguistic features, semantic category predicted mood usefor all participant groups starting with Level 2 and was an influential factorat an earlier developmental stage than the other linguistic factors. The cross-tabulations illustrated in Figure 1 show the direction of this effect. Each groupused the subjunctive with a similar continuum of frequency of use (in descend-ing order): volition, comment, uncertainty, temporality, and assertion. Learnersrecognized that the variable was important for mood use and responded to itjust as NSs did.

Time reference was a significant predictor for the three most advanced-level L2 groups and the NSs. Although time reference improved the regressionmodels for these groups, Figure 2 shows that the effect this variable had onmood use was not uniform. The cross-tabulations revealed that Level 5 and theNSs used the subjunctive most often in future-, followed by present-, and least



Figure 2 Percentage of Subjunctive Use according to Time Reference.

Figure 3 Percentage of Subjunctive Use according to Hypotheticality.

often in past-time discourse contexts. For Levels 3 and 4, rates of subjunctiveuse across past-, present-, and future-time discourse contexts were relativelysimilar.

The same participant groups for which time reference was included inthe regression model showed significant results for hypotheticality. Figure 3demonstrates that NSs produced the subjunctive most often in past hypothetical,



Figure 4 Percentage of Subjunctive Use according to Form Regularity.

followed by nonhypothetical, and least often in non-past hypothetical discoursecontexts. While Levels 3 and 4 showed a similar distribution to the NSs,Level 5 did not. Level 5 used the subjunctive most frequently in nonhypothetical,followed by past hypothetical, and least frequently in non-past hypotheticaldiscourse contexts. Although the interlanguage of the three higher-proficiencyL2 groups recognized that hypotheticality was an influential factor in mooduse, only Levels 3 and 4 showed nativelike patterns.

Form regularity was included in the regression models for Levels 4 and5 and the NSs. Figure 4 illustrates that the groups were similar in that eachused the subjunctive most frequently with irregular verbs. However, subjunc-tive use across form-specific irregular and regular verbs differed among thethree groups. Level 4 produced the subjunctive more often with form-specificirregular than regular verbs. For Level 5 subjunctive use was similar betweenthe two categories, with the subjunctive occurring only slightly more often withform-specific irregular verbs. Finally, NSs produced the subjunctive more oftenwith regular than form-specific irregular verbs.

The extralinguistic variable task was the only variable shown to predictmood use for each participant group. It was included in the regression modelsbeginning with Level 1. Figure 5 indicates that all L2 groups responded to thevariable just as NSs did; their subjunctive use was most frequent in Task 3,followed by Task 2, and least frequent in Task 1.



Figure 5 Percentage of Subjunctive Use according to Task.

In summary, the cross-tabulations and χ2 tests examining the frequency ofmood use revealed significant differences in the rate of subjunctive use acrossgroups; only Level 5 and the NSs produced the subjunctive at a statisticallysimilar rate. The multivariate regression analysis provided details about thelinguistic features that conditioned learners’ mood use, and pairing resultsfrom the logistic-regression models with those from the cross-tabulations re-vealed additional similarities and differences among groups regarding the wayslearners responded to these variables.

Discussion

This investigation demonstrated that both an examination of frequency of useand a multivariate analysis provided new information about the L2 acquisitionof mood use in Spanish. It also indicated that the same linguistic and extralin-guistic variables that have been shown to predict NS mood use (Gudmestad,2010) characterized L2 development of this linguistic structure. In what fol-lows, first the research questions are discussed in light of the current study’sfindings. Then, the findings and their implications are elaborated upon for whatthey contribute to advancing two fundamental goals in SLA: description andexplanation.



Main Findings: L2 Development of Mood UseIn terms of the first research question concerning the frequency of use ofverbal moods, each L2 level produced the subjunctive at a different rate andthe frequency of subjunctive use increased from 4.1 percent at Level 1 to53.8 percent at Level 5. However, the observed increase was not entirely linear,as a temporary decrease in subjunctive use occurred with Level 4. While thisfinding may suggest that Level 4 was less targetlike in their use of verbalmoods than Level 3, the results for the logistic-regression models showed thatthis conclusion is not necessarily the case. This issue will be addressed laterin the discussion. Concerning the third research question, observations thatemerge from comparing the frequency of subjunctive use between NSs andlearners are that learners tended to become more nativelike as their proficiencyimproved and that only Level 5 produced the subjunctive at the same rate asNSs.

Regarding the second research question, which addressed the linguistic andextralinguistic features characterizing mood use, the present investigation hassuggested that refining previously studied variables and adding new variablesto the analysis can advance the understanding of L2 mood use in Spanish.The extralinguistic variable of task was the only independent variable shownto predict mood use for all L2 groups. In contrast, all of the linguistic featureshelped to identify differences in mood use among the five L2 groups. Each ofthe linguistic variables is discussed in turn and, in order to address the thirdresearch question, comparisons to the NS group are also made.

Semantic category was a significant predictor of mood use for Levels 2through 5. These learners’ hierarchy of use across the five categories was similarto that found for the NS comparison group (Gudmestad, 2010), the learners andNSs in Geeslin and Gudmestad (2008) and the NSs in Silva-Corvalan (1994). Inaddition to supporting previous investigations that demonstrated that semanticcategory was an influential linguistic feature in mood distinction in L2 Spanish(e.g., Collentine, 1995), this result is valuable because it indicates that onceinterlanguage recognizes that a linguistic factor is relevant for mood use (i.e.,NSs also rely on the feature), the variable remains part of the interlanguage asacquisition continues.

Regarding discourse-level features, time reference was expanded from thefactor futurity (e.g., Gudmestad, 2006) and identified differences in mood useacross past-, present-, and future-time discourse contexts, and, for the first time,hypotheticality was examined in L2 mood use in Spanish and found to playan influential role in L2 acquisition. Although Levels 3 through 5 and the NSswere similar because time reference and hypotheticality predicted their mood



use, differences in targetlike use were observed. Only Level 5’s subjunctive usewas similar to the NSs’ use across the categories of time reference, whereasLevels 3 and 4, but not Level 5, exhibited nativelike subjunctive use accordingto hypotheticality. The differences in mood use according to time referenceand hypotheticality between Levels 3 and 4, on one hand, and Level 5, on theother, reveal another important finding. These differences suggest that afterinterlanguage has recognized the importance of a linguistic feature, the impactit has on mood use is not necessarily static; the interplay between mood useand a linguistic factor can fluctuate in interlanguage.

In response to the methodological differences and varying results acrossstudies that have examined form regularity’s role in L2 mood distinction (e.g.,Collentine, 1997), the current investigation explored form regularity with amore detailed classification of categories. The results that the two most ad-vanced L2 groups, like the NSs, used the subjunctive more often with irregularverbs than with regular and form-specific irregular verbs appear to lend sup-port to previous research, but they also help refine the understanding of thisrelationship by suggesting that it is verbs that undergo a vowel change, and notthe addition of a consonant in some verb forms, that seem to promote subjunc-tive use. In order to better understand why irregular verbs and the subjunctivemay be connected, future studies may wish to explore possible explanationsempirically. Task variation and frequency of use of form-regularity categoriesare two possible avenues of investigation, as suggested by Geeslin (2010) andPoplack (2001), respectively.

The present investigation’s findings also have implications for ultimateattainment. The vast research in this area (e.g., Birdsong, 1992; Montrul &Slabakova, 2003) has centered on issues related to the end state of acquisition.The current study confirms that the rate of acquisition is relatively slow forthis late-acquired grammatical structure (cf. Geeslin & Gudmestad, 2008), butperhaps one of the investigation’s most important findings is that the dataseem to suggest that adult learners may acquire near nativelike mood use,at least for the mood-choice contexts under investigation. While the currentstudy substantiates the understanding that the subjunctive is the mood thatdevelops later in interlanguage, it is also the first to show adult learners (theLevel 5 NNSs) using the subjunctive at the same rate as NSs. Concerning thelinguistic and extralinguistic features conditioning subjunctive use for Level 5and the NSs, the only difference that emerged between these two groups wasthe way in which they used the subjunctive across the categories of the variablehypotheticality. It can be noted that the Level 5 NNSs differed from those inthe other L2 groups insofar as most had lived in a Spanish-speaking country,



their average length of stay greatly exceeded the mean time spent abroad ofthe other groups, and all but one Level 5 participant had taught undergraduate-level courses in Spanish. As a result of these differences, Level 5 NNSs hadpossibly been exposed to a greater quantity of input in Spanish, and this factormay in part be responsible for their near targetlike mood use. While futurestudies need to substantiate this observation, the present investigation appearsto offer convincing evidence that the Level 5 NNSs and the NSs exhibited moresimilarities than differences in their use of verbal moods.

Contributions of Variationist Findings to SLAThe present study shows that variationism can foster rich descriptions and expla-nations of interlanguage and its evolution, thus contributing to the advancementof these two fundamental goals in SLA. Variationism can contribute to the goalof describing L2 acquisition by offering insights about stages of developmentand form–meaning associations. First, pairing analyses of frequency and pre-dictors can provide revealing details about L2 developmental stages. It seemsthat the order in which the linguistic features predicted learners’ use of verbalmoods can be used to identify stages of development for the contexts in whichthey begin to make mood distinctions. L2 mood use was first governed by thesentence-level feature semantic category. Next the discourse-level factors timereference and hypotheticality, along with semantic category, predicted use. Al-though the discourse-level variables entered into the predictive model at thesame level, the developmental pattern for time reference and hypotheticalitydiffered. The former was characterized by nontargetlike use for Levels 3 and 4and nativelike use for Level 5, while the opposite pattern was observed for hy-potheticality. Following sentence and discourse-level variables, the word-levelfeature form regularity entered into the regression model to impact mood usefor the two most advanced-level L2 groups. Furthermore, as proficiency levelincreased and more linguistic factors were influencing learners’ mood use, thefrequency of subjunctive use was also becoming gradually more targetlike.Differences across proficiency levels were not observed for the extralinguisticfeature task.

The value of coupling analyses of frequency and predictors for the identi-fication of stages of development is also seen when Levels 3 and 4 are closelycompared. The observed temporary decrease in subjunctive use by Level 4participants is revisited in this light. While Level 3 was closer to the target interms of frequency of subjunctive use, which could indicate that this group wasat a more advanced developmental stage than Level 4, the contexts in whichLevel 4 used verbal moods appeared to be more nativelike. Two observations



support this claim. Level 4’s regression model predicted a higher percentageof mood use than Level 3, which indicates that Level 3’s mood use was lessconsistent than Level 4’s use. Additionally, form regularity was a significantpredictor for Level 4 but not Level 3. Thus, these observations suggest that,in compensation for higher subjunctive use, Level 3 diverged from the targetin terms of the specific linguistic contexts that favored the subjunctive. Thisdetailed examination of Levels 3 and 4 is important because it illustrates thatutilizing analytical tools in variationism enables researchers to identify intricatenuances of L2 developmental stages.

Second, observations regarding the development of learners’ form–meaningassociations can be made from a variationist approach. A form–meaning associ-ation “is a situation in which a form encodes some kind of referential meaning”(VanPatten, Williams, & Rott, 2004, p. 3). In the current study, the form refersto verbal moods, the subjunctive in particular, and the meaning correspondsto the linguistic features related to mood distinction. Acquiring form–meaningassociations involves making the first connection and then expanding and/orre-evaluating the association as the interlanguage develops. While research onthis issue spans a range of theoretical and analytical perspectives (see VanPattenet al., 2004), the current data and variationist framework seem most compatiblewith meaning-oriented approaches, because they each hold meaning centraland aim to understand through production data how learners’ form–meaningassociations evolve in interlanguage (e.g., Bardovi-Harlig, 2007). Functional-ism has been employed to study form–meaning associations in tense-aspect andmodal systems in target languages such as English (e.g., Bardovi-Harlig, 2000)and is fairly widespread but, to the researcher’s knowledge, previous studieshave not examined the development of form–meaning connections for mooddistinction in L2 Spanish.

Considering only the linguistic features under investigation, it appears thatLevel 1 has not made a form–meaning connection for mood distinction becausenone of the linguistic factors predicted their mood use. Beginning at Level 2, thesentence-level variable semantic category influenced learners’ mood use. Whilejust one feature impacted their production, it seems that they have mapped morethan one function to the subjunctive because this variable comprised five se-mantic categories (cf. Andersen, 1988). A cross-sectional examination of thedata reveals that learners expanded and restructured their form–meaning con-nections. The time reference and hypotheticality factors, as well as semanticcategory, predicted mood use for all L2 groups beyond Level 2, so learners madeadditional form–meaning associations with discourse-level features at later de-velopmental stages. Three results—namely, that time reference was a predictive



factor beginning at Level 3 but not used in a targetlike manner until Level 5,that the way learners responded to hypotheticality was different betweenLevels 3 and 4 on the one hand and Level 5 on the other, and that the fre-quency of subjunctive use tended to increase cross-sectionally—demonstratethat as the interlanguage developed learners reorganized and strengthened theirform–meaning connections. Thus, variationism is another framework that canprovide a means for providing detailed descriptions of form–meaning associa-tions in interlanguage.

Frequency and predictors of use seem to advance another principal goalin SLA: explanation. Previous research has demonstrated that mood use inSpanish is variable (e.g., Silva-Corvalan, 1994) and that this use can be charac-terized by a range of factors (e.g., Gudmestad, 2010). These properties of theinput essentially mean that learners are exposed to conflicting evidence becausemood use is not categorical (i.e., more than one form is used in one linguisticcontext). Similar to other approaches that weight the position of input in L2 ac-quisition (e.g., usage-based theories; N. Ellis, 2002), one goal of variationism isto explain the role input plays in L2 acquisition. The present analysis advancesthis knowledge by offering explanations of how learners develop the constraintsto vary their use of verbal moods and to do so in targetlike ways. In terms ofPreston’s (2000) psycholinguistic model for L2 variation, the linguistic vari-ables under investigation (Level 2 of his model) helped to explain changes ininterlanguage across time (Level 3 of his model, represented by cross-sectionaldata), whereas the impact that the extralinguistic variable task (Level 1 of hismodel) had on mood use was relatively stable across proficiency levels. Thisobservation supports the understanding that linguistic features are more influ-ential in L2 acquisition than nonlinguistic factors (cf. Preston, 1989), althoughmore extralinguistic factors need to be investigated with mood distinction inSpanish to strengthen this claim.

Not only does it appear that variationism as employed in this study hasenabled the identification of linguistic and extralinguistic features that accountfor the L2 development of mood use in Spanish, but it also seems to havemade other important observations that aid in explaining L2 acquisition. Inparticular, it has demonstrated how learners modify constraints during de-velopment, how they change frequency of use of each variant according topredictive factors (i.e., the rate of subjunctive use with the semantic cate-gory of volition and the time reference category of future were different),and how they respond to internal and external predictors gradually, insteadof simultaneously. Although there was a general tendency in the data to re-spond to variable input by using the subjunctive more often and responding



to more predictive features as proficiency improved, the interaction betweenfrequency and predictors was more complex than this trend. Frequency of useand rates of overall variability can fluctuate, and the internal and external factorsaid in explaining these changes.

Conclusion

This large-scale investigation of L2 mood use in Spanish has illustrated howvariationism, analyzing frequency and predictors of use, can foster rich de-scriptions and explanations of interlanguage and its evolution. It has shownthat, while learners gradually become more targetlike in their use of verbalmoods, this development is not entirely linear. A decrease in the frequencyof subjunctive production (i.e., Level 4) can occur before learners use verbalmoods at the same rate as NSs and, although learners respond to more lin-guistic features as acquisition progresses, they can move from more to lessnativelike use (i.e., hypotheticality). It has further demonstrated, nonetheless,that adult learners can reach near nativelike use of verbal moods in the mood-choice contexts under investigation, and that the same predictors for mooduse known to be relevant for NSs become relevant for learners eventuallyas well, suggesting that the acquisition of an L2 includes the acquisition ofvariation.

The present study is also limited in certain ways that suggest fruitful newvenues for future research on mood distinction in L2 Spanish. First, data fromearlier developmental stages are needed so the proficiency level and the con-texts in which the subjunctive emerges can be traced. Moreover, learners whoare at more advanced stages of acquisition should be examined to confirm thattargetlike, as opposed to near nativelike, mood use is attainable. In addition,other relevant internal and external predictors should be identified and addi-tional mood-choice contexts should be examined. Likewise, future analysesof verb forms not examined here, such as the imperfect, used in mood-choicecontexts could provide important information about L2 acquisition. Form–function analyses are necessary as well; they would reveal whether learnersuse the subjunctive in contexts where NSs do not or if their use is restricted totargetlike contexts. In terms of future research for variationist SLA, mood usein other L2s could also be explored, employing similar analytical methods andvariables. Cross-linguistic comparisons could show whether the ways in whichlearners of Spanish acquire the ability to modify linguistic and extralinguisticconstraints are unique to Spanish or if the same developmental patterns accountfor L2 acquisition of mood use in other languages.



Through an examination of a wider range of L2 proficiency levels and mood-choice contexts and of new data-elicitation tasks and variables, the current studyhopes to have provided strong empirical and theoretical support for the notionthat assumptions about L2 acquisition should be built on empirical evidence.As Major (2001) and Bayley and Preston (2008) have argued, in order tounderstand how L2 learning progresses and what processes are involved, SLAshould account for the data, and, because variation is present in language,accounting for the data should include accounting for variation. In this vein,the present investigation has provided data that are relevant for SLA theories.

Revised version accepted 25 January 2011

Notes

1 “Mood distinction” refers to the subjunctive-indicative contrast. “Mood use” onlydescribes language production and “mood selection” is limited to tasks in whichparticipants choose between verb forms.

2 Lubbers Quesada’s (1998) study on L2 subjunctive use examined futurity, but at thesentence level.

3 Other social variables were not investigated because the sociolinguistic literaturehas not provided conclusive results on their role in mood use (Gudmestad, 2010).

4 Time reference can be established and investigated at the sentence level as well(e.g., Bardovi-Harlig, 2000).

5 Level 3 and Level 4 largely correspond to third-year and fourth-year courses,respectively. However, due to the flexibility in which learners take courses after thesixth-semester, some adjustments based on previous coursework experience weremade. Learners in the third-year courses had completed an average of 3.75 courses(range = 0–9 courses), whereas participants in the fourth-year courses hadcompleted an average of 5.71 courses (range = 2–9 courses). These averagesinclude the number of courses taken after the fifth-semester course, so Levels 3 and4 had taken more Spanish courses than Level 2. To account for learners whosecourse sequence differed from the norm, learners in third-year courses who hadtaken six or more courses were regrouped to Level 4 and participants in fourth-yearcourses who had taken three courses or fewer were moved to Level 3.

6 For Levels 3 and 4, a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was run to explorepossible differences in mean scores on the language proficiency test betweenlearners who did and did not study abroad. The results revealed a significantdifference for the average scores on the test between groups for Level 4, F(1, 21) =6.392, p < .05, but not for Level 3, F(1,24) = 0.059, p > .05. However, after takinga closer look at the scores for each Level 4 participant, it was noted that oneparticipant who did not study abroad scored noticeably lower than the mean. When



this participant was removed from the group and another ANOVA was conducted,no significant difference for the mean test scores was found between the group whostudied abroad and the group who did not, F(1,20) = 3,380, p > .05). This resultseems to suggest that the significant difference found for Level 4 may be attributedto one participant who earned a low score on the test. In light of these statisticalresults and the varying effects of study abroad on L2 acquisition (e.g., Lafford,2006), learners were analyzed together, regardless of study abroad experience.

7 Research on individual differences is a necessary component of SLA and is left forfuture research where it can be examined thoroughly.

References

Andersen, R. W. (1988). Models, processes, principles and strategies: Second languageacquisition inside and outside the classroom. Issues and Developments in Englishand Applied Linguistics (IDEAL), 3, 111–138.

Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2000). Tense and aspect in second language acquisition: Form,meaning, and use. Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2007). One functional approach to second language acquisition:The concept-oriented approach. In B. VanPatten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories insecond language acquisition: An introduction (pp. 57–75). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Bayley, R., & Langman, J. (2004). Comparing variation in the group and theindividual: Evidence from second language acquisition. International Review ofApplied Linguistics, 42, 303–319.

Bayley, R. J., & Preston, D. R. (1996). Second language acquisition and linguisticvariation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Bayley, R., & Preston, D. R. (2008). Variation and second language grammars. Studiesin Hispanic and Lusophone Linguistics, 1, 385–397.

Berdan, R. (1996). Distentangling language acquisition from language variation. InR. Bayley & D. Preston (Eds.), Second language acquisition and linguistic variation(pp. 203–244). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Birdsong, D. (1992). Ultimate attainment in second language acquisition. Language,68, 706–755.

Borgonovo, C., Bruhn de Garavito, J., & Prevost, P. (2005). Acquisition of mooddistinctions in L2 Spanish. In A. Brugos, M. R. Clark-Cotton, & S. Ha (Eds.),Proceedings of the 29th Annual Boston University Conference on LanguageDevelopment (pp. 97–108). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.

Bosque, I. (1990). Indicativo y subjuntivo. Madrid: Taurus.Butt, J., & Benjamin, C. (2004). A new reference grammar of modern Spanish (4th

ed.). New York: McGraw Hill.Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to

second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1, 1–47.



Chambers, J. K., Trudgill, P., & Schilling-Estes, N. (2002). The handbook of languagevariation and change. Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Collentine, J. (1995). The development of complex sentences and mood-selectionabilities by intermediate-level learners of Spanish. Hispania, 78, 122–135.

Collentine, J. (1997). The effects of irregular stems on the detection of verbs in thesubjunctive. Spanish Applied Linguistics, 1, 3–23.

Ellis, N. C. (2002). Frequency effects in language processing: A review withimplications for theories of implicit and explicit language acquisition. Studies inSecond Language Acquisition, 24, 143–188.

Ellis, R. (1997). Second language acquisition. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Ellis, R. (2008). The study of second language acquisition (2nd ed.). Oxford, UK:

Oxford University Press.Farley, A. P. (2004). Processing instruction and the Spanish subjunctive: Is explicit

information needed? In B. VanPatten (Ed.), Processing instruction: Theory,research, and commentary (pp. 227–239). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Geeslin, K. L. (2005). Cross disciplinary boundaries to improve the analysis of secondlanguage data. Munich, Germany: Lincom Europa.

Geeslin, K. L. (2010). Beyond “naturalistic”: On the role of task characteristics and theimportance of multiple elicitation methods. Studies in Hispanic and LusophoneLinguistics, 3, 501–520.

Geeslin, K. L., & Gudmestad, A. (2008). Comparing interview and written elicitationtask in native and non-native data: Do speakers do what we think they do? InJ. Bruhn de Garavito & E. Valenzuela (Eds.), Selected proceedings of the HispanicLinguistics Symposium (pp. 64–77). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla ProceedingsProject.

Gudmestad, A. (2006). L2 variation and the Spanish subjunctive: Linguistic featurespredicting mood selection. In C. Klee & T. Face (Eds.), Selected papers of the 7thConference on the Acquisition of Spanish and Portuguese as First and SecondLanguages (pp. 170–184). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.

Gudmestad, A. (2010). Moving beyond a sentence-level analysis in the study ofvariable mood use in Spanish. Southwest Journal of Linguistics, 29(1), 25–51.

Hansen Edwards, J. G. (2011). Deletion of /t, d/ and the acquisition of linguisticvariation by second language learners of English. Language Learning, 61,1256–1301.

Kornuc, S. P. (2004). L2 use and development of mood selection in Spanishcomplement clauses (Doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California).Dissertation Abstracts International, 64, 9.

Labov, W. (1972). Sociolinguistic patterns. Philadelphia: University of PennsylvaniaPress.

Lafford, B. (2006). The effects of study abroad vs. classroom contexts on SpanishSLA: Old assumptions, new insights and future research directions. In C. Klee &T. Face (Eds.), Selected papers of the 7th Conference on the Acquisition of Spanish



and Portuguese as First and Second Languages (pp. 1–25). Somerville, MA:Cascadilla Proceedings Project.

Leow, R. (1995). Modality and intake in second language acquisition. Studies inSecond Language Acquisition, 17, 79–90.

Lubbers Quesada, M. (1998). L2 acquisition of the Spanish subjunctive mood andprototype schema development. Spanish Applied Linguistics, 2, 1–23.

Lunn, P. V. (1989). Spanish mood and the prototype of assertability. Linguistics, 27,687–702.

Major, R. (2001). Foreign accent: The ontogeny and phylogeny of second languagephonology. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Mitchell, R., & Myles, F. (2004). Second language learning theories (2nd ed.).New York: Hodder Arnold.

Montrul, S. (2007). Interpreting mood distinctions in Spanish as a heritage language.In K. Potowski & R. Cameron (Eds.), Spanish in contact: Educational, linguistic,and social perspectives (pp. 23–40). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Montrul, S., & Slabakova, R. (2003). Competence similarities between native andnear-native speakers: An investigation of the preterite-imperfect contrast in Spanish.Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25, 351–398.

Mougeon, R., Nadasdi, T., & Rehner, K. (2010). The sociolinguistic competence ofimmersion students. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.

Poplack, S. (2001). Variability, frequency, and productivity in the irrealis of French. InJ. Bybee & P. Hopper (Eds.), Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure(pp. 405–428). Amtersdam: John Benjamins.

Perez-Leroux, A. T. (1998). The acquisition of mood selection in Spanish relativeclauses. Journal of Child Language, 23, 585–604.

Preston, D. R. (1989). Sociolinguistics and second language acquisition. Oxford, UK:Blackwell.

Preston, D. (2000). Three kinds of sociolinguistics and SLA: A psycholinguisticperspective. In B. Swierzbin, F. Morris, M. E. Anderson, C. A. Klee, & E. Tarone(Eds.), Social and cognitive factors in SLA: Selected proceedings of the 1999Second Language Research Forum (pp. 3–30). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.

Regan, V., Howard, M., & Lemee, I. (2009). The acquisition of sociolinguisticcompetence in a study abroad context. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.

Rehner, K. (2002). The development of aspects of linguistic and discourse competenceby advanced second language learners of French (Doctoral dissertation, Universityof Toronto). Dissertation Abstracts International, 63, 12.

Robinson, P. (2001). Task complexity, task difficulty and task production:Explaining interaction in a componential framework. Applied Linguistics, 22,27–57.

Schilling-Estes, N. (2002). Investigating stylistic variation. In J. K. Chambers,P. Trudgill, & N. Schilling-Estes (Eds.), The handbook of language variation andchange (pp. 375–401). Malden, MA: Blackwell.



Selinker, L. (1972). Interlanguage. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 10,209–231.

Silva-Corvalan, C. (1994). The gradual loss of mood distinctions in Los AngelesSpanish. Language Variation and Change, 6, 255–272.

Tarone, E. (2007). Sociolinguistic approaches to second language acquisitionresearch—1997–2007. Modern Language Journal, 91, 837–848.

Tarone, E., & Liu, G. Q. (1995). Situational context, variation and second-languageacquisition theory. In G. Cook & B. Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principles and practice in thestudy of language and learning: A Festschrift for H. G. Widdowson (pp. 107–124).Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Terrell, T., Baycroft, B., & Perrone, C. (1987). The subjunctive in Spanishinterlanguage: Accuracy and comprehensibility. In B. VanPatten, T. Dvorak, &J. F. Lee (Eds.), Foreign language learning: A research perspective (pp. 19–32).Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

VanPatten, B., Williams, J., & Rott, S. (2004). Form-meaning connections in secondlanguage acquisition. In B. VanPatten, J. Williams, S. Rott, & M. Overstreet (Eds.),Form-meaning connections in second language acquisition (pp. 1–26). Mahwah,NJ: Erlbaum.

Woolsey, D. (2009). Second language acquisition of the Spanish verb ESTAR withadjectives: An exploration of contexts of comparison and immediate experience.Munich, Germany: Lincom Europa.

Young, R. (1991). Variation in interlanguage morphology. New York: Peter Lang.

Supporting Information

Additional Supporting Information may be found in the online version of thisarticle:

Appendix S1. Background: Examples of Mood Distinction in Spanish.Appendix S2. Method: Examples of Oral-Elicitation Tasks.Appendix S3. Results: Cross-Tabulation Tables.Appendix S4. Results: Examples of Mood-Choice Contexts.

Please note: Wiley-Blackwell are not responsible for the content or functionalityof any supporting materials supplied by the authors. Any queries (other thanmissing material) should be directed to the corresponding author for the article.


Documents

Acquiring a Variable Structure: An Interlanguage Analysis of Second Language Mood Use in Spanish