Unit One: Techniques and Issues in Applied Linguistic

I. A Brief Review of the Techniques of Applied Linguistics

3. INTERLANGUAGE

Definition
Interlanguage can be generally defined as ‘The type of language produced by second and foreign language
learners who are in the process of learning a language’ (LDAL: 145). Selinker (1972, 1992) is attributed
with the development of the theory of Interlanguage (IL) in relation to Second Language Acquisition (SLA).
While contrastive analysis and error analysis are deeply rooted in structuralism and behaviourism,
Interlanguage, coming after the demise of behaviourism, was in line with the growing body of cognitive
approaches in applied linguistics.
In the literature on Interlanguage, A number of ideas come within this umbrella concept, the most
important of which are Nemser’s concept of 'approximate systems' and Corder’s concepts of 'idiosyncratic
dialects' and 'transitional competence'. The difference between these concepts is a matter of emphasis
because their interchangeable use in the literature is well documented. In his contribution on
Interlanguage, Ellis uses this concept to refer “interim grammars which learners build on their way to full
target language competence' (1994:30). In this respect, it worth mentioning that IL is closely related to
the linguistic theories of error analysis and transfer, but within the framework of Interlanguage, errors
are considered as a natural part of the process of the process and journey of learning and developing the
target language.
1. Selinker’s ‘Interlanguage’
Five central processes are involved in the development of Interlanguage. Selinker identified these five
main cognitive processes as follows:
1.1. Language transfer. The first was transfer or interference from L1, that is, “the carry-over of the
features already acquired into the process of learning a target language (see LDAL: 297). This is the
case when ‘fossilizable items’, rules, and subsystems which occur in IL performance are a result of
the NL…’ (Selinker, 1974:37). In this respect, Ellis (1985:48) comments that Selinker may have
included the process of transfer or interference in some deference to the prevailing contrastive
approach of the time”.
1.2. Transfer of training. The second was transfer of language training. This process is characterised by
the learner’s use of fossilizable items, rules, and subsystems resulting from the way a linguistic item
has been presented and/or practiced during the process of teaching. The learner here produces
what are referred to as ‘induced’ errors (see LDAL: 138).
1.3. Strategies of second language learning. The third consisted of strategies of second language
learning. This third process refers to the use by the learner of specific strategies in solving problems
s/he may face during the experience of learning the TL. A learning strategy is the ‘a learner attempts
to work out the meanings and uses of words, grammatical rules, and other aspects of a language,
for example by the use of generalisation and inferencing’ (LDAL: 162).
1.4. Strategies of second language communication. The fourth item offers a key distinction from
learning strategies, with strategies of second language communication identified. The way we learn
L2 may not be the way we communicate with native speakers, and there are key differences that
1
 previously had not been paid much attention. These strategies are resorted to when the learner is
involved in communication using the TL; e.g., paraphrasing when the learner does not know the
right word for something. (LDAL: 48)
1.5. Overgeneralisation. This process involves the use of items which are the result of
‘overgeneralisation of TL linguistic material’. Overgeneralisation refers to the process of extending
the use of a rule or linguistic item to cases where they do not apply, to make them follow a regular
pattern. Selinker lists 'overgeneralization of target language material' which might be a common
feature of IL. Learners may make the learning task more manageable for themselves, according to
their own learning syllabus and strategies, even though this may lead to over-simplification and
generalisation.
In this context, Ellis explains that 'language transfer' and 'overgeneralisation' could be considered as
part of 'learning strategies' but overall, they represented “one of the first attempts to specify the mental
processes responsible for L2 acquisition' (1994:351). Interest in Interlanguage motivated ample concern
in IL in terms of theory, research and teaching methodology.
2. Nemser’s ‘approximative system’
Nemser proposed three assumptions concerning approximate systems which also contributed to IL
theory. He points out that ‘An approximative system is the deviant linguistic system actually employed by
the learner attempting to utilise the target language (1971). He explains that ‘the second language
learner’s degree of competence determines these approximative systems and their variation by learning
experience, the communicative uses to which the second language is put and the personal characteristics
of the learner.
Assumptions behind the development of the notion of approximative systems as outlined by Nemser
(1971) are:
a) The learner’s language at a given time is ‘the patterned product of a linguistic system’ (the
approximative system), different from his L1 and the TL. This refers to the idea that “a learner's speech
is a patterned and systematic product, which is neither L1 nor L2 but is closer to one or the other,
depending at which point on the IL continuum they have reached (Byram, 2000:308).
b) The approximative system refers to the notion of IL evolving in clear stages, which, presumably, can
be gauged with proper observation. The approximative system ‘forms an evolving series’ beginning
with the stage when the learner begins learning the TL and ending with the stage when s/he gets to
the most advance stage (near native-speaker proficiency).
c) In a situation characterised by contact of two languages, the approximative systems of learners at the
same stage of proficiency roughly coincide, with differences which can be accounted for by differences
in learning experience. In this respect, Byram (2000: 309) points out that “this assumption is linked to
the that learners at the same stage of proficiency will exhibit similar features in their approximate
systems with any major variations attributable to external factors such as different learning
experiences, and that the IL should be similar, as it reflects innate processes, and again this can be
tested through research of learners' performance, including their errors”.
3. Corder’s transitional competence

Starting from the assumption that the language of the second language learner is ‘a special sort of dialect’
(an ‘idiosyncratic dialect’), characterised by systematicity and regularity, Corder states that ‘the learner
possesses a certain body of knowledge which we hope is constantly developing, which underlies the
utterances he makes and which it is the task of the applied linguist to investigate’ (1981: 67). According
to Corder (1973), Interlanguage is, then, systematic, rule-governed and common to all learners. In this
line of thought, Byram comments that this systematicity was emphasised in Corder's (1973) work on the
innate syllabus of learning and error analysis and states that “The question then arises of the similarities
and differences between the first and second language learning processes. It has to be asked how L2

2
learners, particularly adults, learn another language, since the original language learning device we use as
children may be unavailable”.
4. The notion of fossilisation

Fossilisation is ‘a process which sometimes occurs in which incorrect linguistic features become a
permanent part of the way a person speaks or writes a language…’ (LDAL: 111). This phenomenon
develops as part of the second language learner’s Interlanguage. Potentially fossilizable aspects of the
language are linguistic items, rules and subsystems of the TL. For example, various errors may become
fossilizable, no matter how much remedial classroom work is undertaken. In some cases, fossilised forms
appear long after ‘errors’ have been theoretically eradicated, particularly when the subject’s attention is
focused upon new and potentially difficult intellectual subject matter, i.e. when s/he is not concentration
on the linguistic quality of his/her production.
Concluding remarks
The advance of Interlanguage Hypothesis constituted a paradigmatic shift from the contrastive analysis
hypothesis and the error analysis hypothesis and furthered the development of SLA research and it is now
used 'by theorists of very different persuasions' (Ellis, 1994:354). According to Byram, It promoted the
examination and evaluation of learner's L2 performance with the key distinction between learning an L2
and communicating with it (2000: 309). Byram (2000) summarises the most important criticisms, which
include the view that the IL continuum may be an unnecessary postulate. He points outs that “It may be
more fitting to discuss what has or has not been correctly learned, rather than resort to unobservable
cognitive processes. Fossilisation can be similarly criticised as a disputed phenomenon, despite its
explanatory powers. Fossilised forms could be persistent errors that were not addressed properly early
on and became 'bad habits'” (2000: 309).
References and recommended readings
1. CORDER, S. Pit 1971 ‘Idiosyncratic Dialects and Error Analysis’ IRAL, Vol. IX/2:
Reprinted in J. Richards (Ed.) Error Analysis: Perspectives on Second
Language Acquisition Longman 1974

2. CORDER, S. Pit 1981 Error Analysis and Interlanguage O.U.P.

3. NEMSER, W. 1971 ‘Approximative Systems of Foreign Language Learners’ IRAL, Vol.

IX/2: Reprinted in J. Richards (Ed.) Error Analysis: Perspectives
on Second Language Acquisition Longman 1974

4. SELINKER, L. 1972 ‘Interlanguage’ IRAL, Vol. IX/3: Reprinted in J. Richards (Ed.)

Error Analysis: Perspectives on Second Language Acquisition
Longman 1974