Interlanguage

Last updated

An interlanguage is an idiolect which has been developed by a learner of a second language (L2) which preserves some features of their first language (L1) and can overgeneralize some L2 writing and speaking rules. These two characteristics give an interlanguage its unique linguistic organization. It is idiosyncratically based on the learner's experiences with L2. An interlanguage can fossilize, or cease developing, in any of its developmental stages. It is claimed that several factors shape interlanguage rules, including L1 transfer, previous learning strategies, strategies of L2 acquisition, L2 communication strategies, and the overgeneralization of L2 language patterns.

Contents

It is based on interlanguage theory, which posits that a dormant psychological framework in the human brain is activated with study of a second language. The theory is credited to Larry Selinker, who coined the terms interlanguage and fossilization. Uriel Weinreich is credited with providing the basis for Selinker's research. Selinker noted in 1972 that in a given situation, the utterances of a learner differ from those of a native speaker to convey an identical meaning. This comparison suggests a separate linguistic system, which can be observed in the utterances of a learner attempting to convey meaning in L2. It is not seen when that the learner performs form-focused tasks, such as oral drills in a classroom.

Interlanguage can vary in different contexts, and may be more accurate, complex, and fluent in one domain than in another. A learner's interlanguage utterances may be compared with two things: utterances in L1 to convey the message produced by the learner, and utterances by a native speaker of L2 to convey the same message. An interlanguage perspective may be used to view a learner's underlying knowledge of the target-language sound system (interlanguage phonology), grammar (morphology and syntax), vocabulary (lexicon), and linguistic norms (interlanguage pragmatics). By describing how learner language conforms to universal linguistic norms, interlanguage research has contributed to the understanding of linguistic universals in second-language acquisition.

Background

The principal theory of second-language (L2) development had been contrastive analysis, which assumed that learner errors were caused by the difference between L1 (their first language) and L2. It was deficit-focused; speech errors were thought to arise randomly, and should be corrected. [1] It was further assumed that a thorough analysis of the differences between a learner's L1 and L2 could predict the difficulties they would face. [2] This assumption was often anecdotal, and research claims were prone to confirmation bias. [2]

In 1957, Robert Lado said that contrastive analysis should be viewed as hypothetical unless it was based on systematic analyses of learner speech data. [2] Around this time, second-language-acquisition research shifted from hypotheses of language learning and development of language-teaching materials to the systematic analysis of learner speech and writing with error analysis. [2] This was initially done to validate contrastive analysis, but researchers found that many learner behaviors could not be easily explained by transfer from a learner's L1 to L2. [2] The idea that a language learner's linguistic system differed from L1 and L2 was developed independently at around the same time by several researchers. [2] William Nemser called it an approximative system, and Pit Corder termed it transitional competence.

Variability

Interlanguage is said to be a language in its own right, and L2 varies much more than L1. Selinker wrote that in a given situation, the utterances of a learner differ from what a native speaker would produce to convey the same meaning. [3] This comparison reveals a separate linguistic system. [4]

Interlanguage varies by context, and may be more accurate, complex, and fluent in one discourse domain than in another. [5] Variability is observed when comparing a learner's conversational utterances with form-focused tasks, such as memory-based oral drills in a classroom. Spontaneous conversations are more likely to use interlanguage. A learner may produce a target-like variant (e.g. "I don't") in one context, and a non-target-like variant ("me no") in another. Scholars differ about the importance of this phenomenon. Those with a Chomskyan perspective on second-language acquisition typically regard variability as performance errors unworthy of systematic inquiry. Those with a sociolinguistic or psycholinguistic orientation view variability as an inherent feature of a learner's interlanguage; a learner's preference for one linguistic variant over another can depend on social (contextual) variables, such as the status (or role) of the person to whom the learner is speaking. [6] Preference may also be based on linguistic variables, such as the phonological environment or neighboring features denoting formality or informality. [7] Variability in learner language distinguishes between free variation (not systematically related to accompanying linguistic or social features) and systematic variation, which is systematically related.

Free variation

Free variation in the use of a language feature is usually taken as a sign that it has not been fully acquired; the learner is still figuring out which rules govern the use of alternate forms.

Systematic variation

Systematic variation is brought about by changes in linguistic, psychological, and social context. Linguistic factors are usually local; for example, a learner in an earlier stage of acquisition will often systematically vary the correct tense. [8] They may say "Last year we travel to the ocean", rather than "Last year we travelled to the ocean." Learners also tend to make more mistakes when the word following a tensed word begins with a consonant (e.g. "burned bacon"), and have greater accuracy when the word following the tensed word begins with a vowel ("burned eggs").[ citation needed ]

Other factors

Social factors may include a change in the register or the familiarity of interlocutors. According to communication accommodation theory, a learner may adapt their speech to converge with or diverge from their interlocutor's usage; for example, they may deliberately use a non-target form like "me no" to an English teacher to assert their identity with a non-mainstream ethnic group. [9]

The most important psychological factor is usually regarded as attention to form, which is related to planning time. The more time that learners have to plan, the more target-like their production may be. Literate learners may produce more target-like forms in a writing task for which they have 30 minutes to plan than in a conversation where they must produce language with almost no planning at all. The impact of alphabetic literacy on an L2 learner's ability to pay attention to form is unclear. [10]

Affective factors also play a role in systematic variation; learners in a stressful situation, such as a formal exam, may produce fewer target-like forms than they would in a comfortable setting. This interacts with social factors, and attitudes toward the interlocutor and topic also play a role.

Stages of development

Individuals learning a second language may not always hear spoken L2 words as separate units; [11] some words might blend and become a single unit in the learner's L2 system. These blended words are known as prefabricated patterns or chunks. These chunks are often not immediately obvious to the learner or a person who hears them speak, but may become noticeable as the learner's L2 system develops and they use the chunk inappropriately. If an English learner hears sentences beginning with "do you", they may hear it as indicating a question (not as two separate words); to them, the word is "doyou". They may say, "What do you doing?" instead of "What are you doing?" The learner may eventually learn to break down the chunk into its component words and use them correctly.

When learners significantly restructure their L2 systems, they sometimes develop a U-shaped learning pattern; a group of English learners moved over time from accurate use of the -ing present progressive morpheme to (incorrectly) omitting it, before finally returning to the correct use. [12] The period of incorrect use is sometimes seen as a learning regression. [13] When the learners first acquired the new -ing morpheme (or chunk), however, they were probably not aware of all the rules governing its use. Their increasing knowledge of tense in English disrupted their correct use of the morpheme, and they eventually returned to correct use when they had a greater understanding of English-language tense rules. The learners were evidently initially memorizing individual words with the present progressive -ing morpheme. At a later stage, however, their systems had the rule that they should use the infinitive to express present action (without a separate rule governing -ing). Finally, they learned the rule for the appropriate use of -ing.

The chunking method enables a learner to practice speaking L2 before they can break a chunk down into its parts. According to interlanguage theory, this apparent progression and regression of language learning indicates the learner's increased understanding of L2 grammar.

Fossilization

An interlanguage can fossilize, or cease developing, at any developmental stage. Fossilization is freezing the transition between L1 and L2; it is the final stage of interlanguage development, and can occur even in motivated learners who are continuously exposed to L2 and have adequate learning support. [14] It may be due to complacency, or an inability to overcome obstacles to native proficiency in L2. Fossilization often occurs in adult language learners, and can occur when a learner succeeds in conveying messages with their current L2 proficiency. Without a need to correct form or structure, the learner fossilizes instead of correcting.

Linguistic universals

Research on universal grammar (UG) has influenced second-language acquisition (SLA) theory, and interlanguage scholarship has sought to demonstrate that learner languages conform to UG throughout development. [15] Interlanguage UG differs from native UG in that interlanguage UGs vary in mental representations from one L2 user to another. [16] This variability arises from different relative influences on the interlanguage UG, such as existing L1 knowledge and UG constraints. An example of a UG constraint is an island constraint, where the wh-phrase in a question has a finite number of possible positions. Island constraints are based on the concept that syntactical domains in a sentence act as phrase boundaries, and it is theorized that the same constraints on a native UG are often present in an interlanguage UG.

Relationship to creoles and pidgins

Interlanguage is related to other types of language, particularly creoles and pidgins; each has its own grammar and phonology. The difference is mainly variability, since a learner's interlanguage is spoken only by the learner and changes as they become more proficient in L2. Creoles and pidgins are generally the product of groups of people in contact with another language, however, and may be more stable.[ citation needed ]

See also

Notes

  1. ↑ Loewen, Shawn, Reinders, Hayo (2011). Key Concepts in Second Language Acquisition. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. p. 98. ISBN   978-0-230-23018-7.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  2. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Tarone 2006.
  3. ↑ Selinker, L (1972). "Interlanguage". International Review of Applied Linguistics. 10 (1–4): 209–241. doi:10.1515/iral.1972.10.1-4.209.
  4. ↑ Tarone, E (2010). "Interlanguage". In Berns, Margie (ed.). The concise encyclopedia of applied linguistics . Oxford: Elsevier. p.  135. ISBN   978-0-08-096502-4.
  5. ↑ Kasper, Gabriele; Blum-Kulka, Shoshana, eds. (1993). Interlanguage pragmatics . New York: Oxford University Press. p.  192. ISBN   0-19-506602-2.
  6. ↑ Kasper, Gabriele; Blum-Kulka, Shoshana, eds. (1993). Interlanguage pragmatics . New York: Oxford University Press. p.  8. ISBN   0-19-506602-2.
  7. ↑ Fasold, R; Preston, D (2007). "The psycholinguistic unity of inherent variability: Old Occam whips out his razor". In Bayley, R; Lucas, C (eds.). Sociolinguistic Variation: Theory, methods, and applications . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp.  45–69.
  8. ↑ Wolfram, Walt (1989). "Systematic variability in second-language tense marking". In Eisenstein, Miriam R. (ed.). The dynamic interlanguage: Empirical studies in second-language variation. New York: Plenum Press. ISBN   0-306-43174-2.
  9. ↑ Rampton, Ben (2005). Crossing : Language & Ethnicity among Adolescents (2 ed.). Manchester: St Jerome Pub. ISBN   9781900650779.
  10. ↑ Tarone, Elaine; Bigelow, Martha; Hansen, Kit (2009). Literacy and second language oracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN   978-0-19-442300-7.
  11. ↑ Altarriba, Jeanette; Heredia, Roberto R., eds. (2008). An introduction to bilingualism : principles and practices. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. ISBN   978-0-8058-5135-9.
  12. ↑ Lightbown, P (1983). "Exploring relationships between developmental and instructional sequences in L2 acquisition". In Seliger, H; Long, M.H. (eds.). Classroom oriented research in second language acquisition. Rowley (MA): Newbury House.
  13. ↑ Altarriba, Jeanette; Heredia, Roberto R., eds. (2008). An introduction to bilingualism : principles and practies. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. ISBN   978-0-8058-5135-9.
  14. ↑ Han, ZhaoHong (2004). Fossilization in adult second language acquisition (Online ed.). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. pp.  12–24. ISBN   1-85359-686-8.
  15. ↑ VanPatten, Bill; Williams, Jessica (2015). Theories in second language acquisition : an introduction (2 ed.). New York: Routledge. ISBN   978-0-415-82421-7.
  16. ↑ VanPatten, Bill; Williams, Jessica (2015). Theories in second language acquisition : an introduction (2 ed.). New York: Routledge. ISBN   978-0-415-82421-7.

Related Research Articles

A second language (L2) is a language spoken in addition to one's first language (L1). A second language may be a neighbouring language, another language of the speaker's home country, or a foreign language. A speaker's dominant language, which is the language a speaker uses most or is most comfortable with, is not necessarily the speaker's first language. For example, the Canadian census defines first language for its purposes as "the first language learned in childhood and still spoken", recognizing that for some, the earliest language may be lost, a process known as language attrition. This can happen when young children start school or move to a new language environment.

Language transfer is the application of linguistic features from one language to another by a bilingual or multilingual speaker. Language transfer may occur across both languages in the acquisition of a simultaneous bilingual, from a mature speaker's first language (L1) to a second language (L2) they are acquiring, or from an L2 back to the L1. Language transfer is most commonly discussed in the context of English language learning and teaching, but it can occur in any situation when someone does not have a native-level command of a language, as when translating into a second language. Language transfer is also a common topic in bilingual child language acquisition as it occurs frequently in bilingual children especially when one language is dominant.

Second-language acquisition (SLA), sometimes called second-language learning—otherwise referred to as L2acquisition, is the process by which people learn a second language. Second-language acquisition is also the scientific discipline devoted to studying that process. The field of second-language acquisition is regarded by some but not everybody as a sub-discipline of applied linguistics but also receives research attention from a variety of other disciplines, such as psychology and education.

Contrastive analysis is the systematic study of a pair of languages with a view to identifying their structural differences and similarities. Historically it has been used to establish language genealogies.

Language attrition is the process of decreasing proficiency in or losing a language. For first or native language attrition, this process is generally caused by both isolation from speakers of the first language ("L1") and the acquisition and use of a second language ("L2"), which interferes with the correct production and comprehension of the first. Such interference from a second language is likely experienced to some extent by all bilinguals, but is most evident among speakers for whom a language other than their first has started to play an important, if not dominant, role in everyday life; these speakers are more likely to experience language attrition. It is common among immigrants that travel to countries where languages foreign to them are used. Second language attrition can occur from poor learning, practice, and retention of the language after time has passed from learning. This often occurs with bilingual speakers who do not frequently engage with their L2.

The generative approach to second language (L2) acquisition (SLA) is a cognitive based theory of SLA that applies theoretical insights developed from within generative linguistics to investigate how second languages and dialects are acquired and lost by individuals learning naturalistically or with formal instruction in foreign, second language and lingua franca settings. Central to generative linguistics is the concept of Universal Grammar (UG), a part of an innate, biologically endowed language faculty which refers to knowledge alleged to be common to all human languages. UG includes both invariant principles as well as parameters that allow for variation which place limitations on the form and operations of grammar. Subsequently, research within the Generative Second-Language Acquisition (GenSLA) tradition describes and explains SLA by probing the interplay between Universal Grammar, knowledge of one's native language and input from the target language. Research is conducted in syntax, phonology, morphology, phonetics, semantics, and has some relevant applications to pragmatics.

The critical period hypothesis or sensitive period hypothesis claims that there is an ideal time window of brain development to acquire language in a linguistically rich environment, after which further language acquisition becomes much more difficult and effortful. It is the subject of a long-standing debate in linguistics and language acquisition over the extent to which the ability to acquire language is biologically linked to age. The critical period hypothesis was first proposed by Montreal neurologist Wilder Penfield and co-author Lamar Roberts in their 1959 book Speech and Brain Mechanisms, and was popularized by Eric Lenneberg in 1967 with Biological Foundations of Language.

The phonology of second languages is different from the phonology of first languages in various ways. The differences are considered to come from general characteristics of second languages, such as slower speech rate, lower proficiency than native speakers, and from the interaction between non-native speakers' first and second languages.

Crosslinguistic influence (CLI) refers to the different ways in which one language can affect another within an individual speaker. It typically involves two languages that can affect one another in a bilingual speaker. An example of CLI is the influence of Korean on a Korean native speaker who is learning Japanese or French. Less typically, it could also refer to an interaction between different dialects in the mind of a monolingual speaker. CLI can be observed across subsystems of languages including pragmatics, semantics, syntax, morphology, phonology, phonetics, and orthography. Discussed further in this article are particular subcategories of CLI—transfer, attrition, the complementarity principle, and additional theories.

Second-language attrition is the decline of second-language skills, which occurs whenever the learner uses the second language to an insufficient degree or due to environmental changes the language use is limited and another language is becoming the dominant one.

The order of acquisition is a concept in language acquisition describing the specific order in which all language learners acquire the grammatical features of their first language. This concept is based on the observation that all children acquire their first language in a fixed, universal order, regardless of the specific grammatical structure of the language they learn. Linguistic research has largely confirmed that this phenomenon is true for first-language learners; order of acquisition for second-language learners is much less consistent. It is not clear why the order differs for second-language learners, though current research suggests this variability may stem from first-language interference or general cognitive interference from nonlinguistic mental faculties.

In linguistics, according to J. Richard et al., (2002), an error is the use of a word, speech act or grammatical items in such a way that it seems imperfect and significant of an incomplete learning (184). It is considered by Norrish as a systematic deviation which happens when a learner has not learnt something, and consistently gets it wrong. However, the attempts made to put the error into context have always gone hand in hand with either [language learning and second-language acquisition] processe, Hendrickson (1987:357) mentioned that errors are ‘signals’ that indicate an actual learning process taking place and that the learner has not yet mastered or shown a well-structured [linguistic competence|competence] in the target language.

The main purpose of theories of second-language acquisition (SLA) is to shed light on how people who already know one language learn a second language. The field of second-language acquisition involves various contributions, such as linguistics, sociolinguistics, psychology, cognitive science, neuroscience, and education. These multiple fields in second-language acquisition can be grouped as four major research strands: (a) linguistic dimensions of SLA, (b) cognitive dimensions of SLA, (c) socio-cultural dimensions of SLA, and (d) instructional dimensions of SLA. While the orientation of each research strand is distinct, they are in common in that they can guide us to find helpful condition to facilitate successful language learning. Acknowledging the contributions of each perspective and the interdisciplinarity between each field, more and more second language researchers are now trying to have a bigger lens on examining the complexities of second language acquisition.

Focus on form (FonF), also called form-focused instruction, is an approach to language education in which learners are made aware of linguistic forms – such as individual words and conjugations – in the context of a communicative activity. It is contrasted with focus on forms, in which forms are studied in isolation, and focus on meaning, in which no attention is paid to forms at all. For instruction to qualify as focus on form and not as focus on forms, the learner must be aware of the meaning and use of the language features before the form is brought to their attention. Focus on form was proposed by Michael Long in 1988.

The interaction hypothesis is a theory of second-language acquisition which states that the development of language proficiency is promoted by face-to-face interaction and communication. Its main focus is on the role of input, interaction, and output in second language acquisition. It posits that the level of language that a learner is exposed to must be such that the learner is able to comprehend it, and that a learner modifying their speech so as to make it comprehensible facilitates their ability to acquire the language in question. The idea existed in the 1980s, and has been reviewed and expanded upon by a number of other scholars but is usually credited to Michael Long.

In the course of learning a second language, learners will frequently encounter communication problems caused by a lack of linguistic resources. Communication strategies are strategies that learners use to overcome these problems in order to convey their intended meaning. Strategies used may include paraphrasing, substitution, coining new words, switching to the first language, and asking for clarification. These strategies, with the exception of switching languages, are also used by native speakers.

In applied linguistics, an error is an unintended deviation from the immanent rules of a language variety made by a second language learner. Such errors result from the learner's lack of knowledge of the correct rules of the target language variety. A significant distinction is generally made between errors and mistakes which are not treated the same from a linguistic viewpoint. The study of learners' errors has been the main area of investigation by linguists in the history of second-language acquisition research.

Larry Selinker is professor emeritus of linguistics at the University of Michigan and former director of the university's English Language Institute. In 1972, Selinker introduced the concept of interlanguage, which built upon Pit Corder's previous work on the nature of language learners' errors. Corder's and Selinker's work became the foundation of modern research into second-language acquisition, and interlanguage is accepted as a basic principle of the discipline.

Elaine Tarone is a retired professor of applied linguistics and is a distinguished teaching professor emerita at the University of Minnesota. She is currently a member of the editorial board of The Modern Language Journal.

The Teachability Hypothesis was produced by Manfred Pienemann. It was originally extracted from Pienemann's Processibility model. It proposes that learners will acquire a second language (L2) features if what is being taught is relatively close to their stage in language development.

References

Further reading

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.