An interlanguage is an idiolect that has been developed by a learner of a second language (or L2) which preserves some features of their first language
(or L1), and can also overgeneralize some L2 writing and speaking
rules. These two characteristics of an interlanguage result in the
system's unique linguistic organization.
An interlanguage is idiosyncratically based on the learners' experiences with the L2. It can "fossilize",
or cease developing, in any of its developmental stages. The
interlanguage rules are claimed to be shaped by several factors,
including L1-transfer, previous learning strategies, strategies of L2
acquisition (i.e., simplification), L2 communication strategies (i.e., circumlocution), and overgeneralization of L2 language patterns.
Interlanguage is based on the theory that there is a dormant
psychological framework in the human brain that is activated when one
attempts to learn a second language. Interlanguage theory is often
credited to Larry Selinker, who coined the terms "interlanguage" and "fossilization." Uriel Weinreich
is credited with providing the foundational information that was the
basis of Selinker's research. Selinker (1972) noted that in a given
situation, the utterances produced by a learner are different from those
native speakers
would produce had they attempted to convey the same meaning. This
comparison suggests the existence of a separate linguistic system. This
system can be observed when studying the utterances of the learner who
attempts to produce meaning in their L2 speech; it is not seen when that
same learner performs form-focused tasks, such as oral drills in a
classroom.
Interlanguage can be variable across different contexts; for
example, it may be more accurate, complex and fluent in one domain than
in another.
To study the psychological processes involved one can compare the interlanguage utterances of the learner with two things:
- Utterances in the native language (L1) to convey the same message produced by the learner.
- Utterances in the target language (L2) to convey the same message, produced by a native speaker of that language.
It is possible to apply an interlanguage perspective to a learner's
underlying knowledge of the target language sound system (interlanguage phonology), grammar (morphology and syntax), vocabulary (lexicon), and language-use norms found among learners (interlanguage pragmatics).
By describing the ways in which learner language conforms to
universal linguistic norms, interlanguage research has contributed
greatly to our understanding of linguistic universals in second-language acquisition.
Background
Before the interlanguage hypothesis rose to prominence, the principal theory of second-language (L2) development was contrastive analysis.
This theory assumed that learners' errors were caused by the difference
between their L1 and L2. This approach was deficit-focused, in the
sense that speech errors were thought to arise randomly and should be
corrected.
A further assumption followed that a sufficiently thorough analysis of
the differences between learners' first and second languages could
predict all of the difficulties they would face.
This assumption was not based in rigorous analysis of learner language
but rather was often anecdotal, and researchers' claims were prone to confirmation bias.
Robert Lado
(1957) held that the claims of contrastive analysis should be viewed as
hypothetical unless and until they were based on systematic analyses of
learner speech data.
Around this time, second-language acquisition research shifted from
hypotheses of language learning and the development of language-teaching
materials to the systematic analysis of learner speech and writing with
the practice of error analysis.
Although this was initially done to validate the claims of contrastive
analysis, researchers found that many learner behaviours could not be
easily explained by transfer from learners' L1 to their L2.
The idea that language learners' linguistic systems were
different from both their L1 and L2 was developed independently at
around the same time by several different researchers. William Nemser called it an approximative system and Pit Corder called it transitional competence.
Variability
Interlanguage is claimed to be a language in its own right. Learner language varies
much more than native-speaker language. Selinker noted that in a given
situation the utterances produced by the learner are different from
those native speakers would produce had they attempted to convey the
same meaning. This comparison reveals a separate linguistic system.
Interlanguage can be observed to be variable across different
contexts. For example, it may be more accurate, complex and fluent in
one discourse domain than in another.
Variability is observed when comparing the utterances of the learner
in conversation to form-focused tasks, such as memory-based oral drills
in a classroom. Spontaneous conversation is more likely to involve the
use of interlanguage. A learner may produce a target-like variant (e.g.
'I don't') in one context and a non-target like variant (e.g. 'me no')
in another. Scholars from different traditions have taken opposing views
on the importance of this phenomenon. Those who bring a Chomskyan
perspective to second-language acquisition typically regard variability
as nothing more than performance errors, and not worthy of systematic
inquiry. On the other hand, those who approach it from a sociolinguistic or psycholinguistic
orientation view variability as an inherent feature of the learner's
interlanguage. In these approaches, 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 the learner is
speaking to.
Preference can also be based on linguistic variables such as the
phonological environment or neighboring features marked for formality or
informality.
Variability in learner language distinguishes between "free
variation", which has not been shown to be systematically related to
accompanying linguistic or social features, and "systematic variation",
which has.
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 trying to
figure out what rules govern the use of alternate forms. This type of
variability seems to be most common among beginning learners, and may be
entirely absent among the more advanced.
Systematic variation
Systematic
variation is brought about by changes in the linguistic, psychological,
and social context. Linguistic factors are usually extremely local. For
example, in earlier stages of acquisition, a learner will often display
systematic constraints on their ability to use the correct tense.
They may say "Last year we travel to the ocean" rather than "Last year
we travelled to the ocean." They also tend to make more mistakes when
the word following a tensed
word begins with a consonant (e.g., burned bacon). But they will show
higher accuracy when the word following the tensed word begins with a
nonconsonant (e.g., burned eggs).
Other factors
Social factors may include a change in register or the familiarity of interlocutors. In accordance with communication accommodation theory,
learners may adapt their speech to either converge with, or diverge
from, their interlocutor's usage. For example, they may deliberately
choose to address a non-target form like "me no" to an English teacher
in order to assert identity with a non-mainstream ethnic group.
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.
Thus, literate learners may produce much more target-like forms in a
writing task for which they have 30 minutes to plan, than in
conversation where they must produce language with almost no planning at
all. The impact of alphabetic literacy level on an L2 learner's ability
to pay attention to form is as yet unclear.
Affective factors
also play an important role in systematic variation. For example,
learners in a stressful situation (such as a formal exam) may produce
fewer target-like forms than they would in a comfortable setting. This
clearly interacts with social factors, and attitudes toward the
interlocutor and topic also play important roles.
Stages of development
Individuals learning a second language may not always hear spoken L2 words as separate units.
Some words might blend together and become a single unit in the
learner's L2 system. The blended words are called "prefabricated
patterns" or "chunks". These chunks are often not immediately obvious to
the learner or anyone that listens to them speak, but may be noticed as
the learner's L2 system becomes more developed and they use the chunk
in a context where it does not apply. For example, if an English learner
hears sentences beginning with "do you", they may associate it with
being an indicator of a question but not as two separate words. To them,
the word is "doyou". They may happen to say "What do you doing?"
instead of "What are you doing?" Eventually the learner will learn to
break the chunk up in to its component words and use them correctly.
When learners experience significant restructuring in their L2
systems, they sometimes show a U-shaped learning pattern. For instance, a
group of English language learners moved, over time, from accurate
usage of the "-ing" present progressive morpheme, to incorrectly
omitting it, and finally, back to correct usage. Occasionally the period of incorrect usage is seen as a learning regression.
However, it is likely that when the learners first acquired the new
"-ing" morpheme or "chunk", they were not aware of all of the rules that
apply to its use. As their knowledge of tense in English expanded, this
disrupted their correct usage of the morpheme. They eventually returned
to correct usage when they gained greater understanding of the tense
rules in English. These data provide evidence that the learners were
initially producing output based on rote memory of individual words
containing the present progressive "-ing" morpheme. However, in the
second stage their systems contained the rule that they should use the
bare infinitive form to express present action, without a separate rule
for the use of "-ing". Finally, they learned the rule for appropriate
use of "-ing".
The "chunking" method enables a learner to practice speaking
their L2 before they correctly break the chunk up in to its component
parts. According to interlanguage theory, this seeming progression and
regression of language learning is an important and positive
manifestation of the learner's developing understanding of the grammar
of the target language.
Fossilization
An interlanguage can fossilize, or cease developing, in any of its
developmental stages. Fossilization is the process of 'freezing' of the
transition between the L1 and L2, and is regarded as the final stage of
interlanguage development. It can occur even in motivated learners who
are continuously exposed to their L2 or have adequate learning support.
Reasons for this phenomenon may be due to complacency or inability to
overcome the obstacles to acquiring native proficiency in the L2.
Fossilization occurs often in adult language learners. It can also occur
when a learner succeeds in conveying messages with their current L2
knowledge. The need to correct the form/structure is therefore not
present. The learner fossilizes the form instead of correcting it.
Linguistic universals
Research on universal grammar (UG) has had a significant effect on second-language acquisition
(SLA) theory. In particular, scholarship in the interlanguage tradition
has sought to show that learner languages conform to UG at all stages
of development.
Interlanguage UG differs from native UG in that interlanguage UGs
vary greatly in mental representations from one L2 user to another.
This variability arises from differing 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 there are certain syntactical
domains within a sentence that act as phrase boundaries. It is theorized
that the same constraints that act on a native UG are also often
present in an interlanguage UG.
Versus creoles and pidgins
The concept of interlanguage is closely related to other types of language, especially creoles and pidgins.
Each of these languages has its own grammar and phonology. The
difference is mostly one of variability, as a learner's interlanguage is
spoken only by the learner and changes frequently as they become more
proficient in the language. In contrast, creoles and pidgins are
generally the product of groups of people in contact with another
language, and therefore may be more stable.
