INTRODUCTION TO INTERLANGUAGE

Short historical preview

Prior to the introduction of interlanguage, linguists attempted, through contrastive analysis between
native languages and target languages, to predict and describe learners' errors in terms of
interference (Lado, 1961) - the projection or transfer of habits of the first language onto that of the
foreign language to be learned. However, whereas language transfer could account for some errors
(especially at the phonological level), it was noticed that a great many errors did not bear a
resemblance to either the native language or to the foreign language being learned.

Selinker's interlanguage hypothesis

Interlanguage defined

Selinker (1972), amongst others, postulated the existence of a system somewhere between the
native language and the language to be learned. This system he termed 'interlanguage' , defining it
as a 'separate linguistic system based on observable output which results from a learner's attempted
production of a target language norm,' where the target language is defined as 'one norm of one
dialect.' This interlanguage system relies upon access to the latent language structure postulated by
Lenneberg (1967) - a device already pre-wired in the brain as a counterpart to universal grammar,
transformed into a 'realized' structure of a particular grammar coinciding with maturational stages
from infancy to adulthood.

However, Selinker also postulates (1975, Selinker et al., 1988) that in addition to this there exists a
separate latent psychological structure accessed for the learning of a second language in adults and
also in children. This device is also pre-wired but has no genetic time table, no necessary connection
with universal grammar, and no guarantee of activation or 'realization' into particular grammar
structures of the second language.

This device is considered independent, but possible overlapping may occur between this structure
and other learning areas of the brain. The five percent of second language learners who achieve
mastery of the L2, according to Selinker, have access to the 'latent language structure' of Lenneberg
(1967), whereas the remaining 95 percent of learners rely on access to the 'latent psychological
structure,' never quite achieving complete mastery of the L2.

Some factors affecting the Interlanguage system

Selinker (1972) lists five factors which directly affect the output of the interlanguage system:

1. Language transfer - fossilizable items, rules, subsystems which occur in the interlanguage as a
result of transfer from the native language.
2. Transfer of training - items resulting from particular approaches used in training.
3. Strategies of second language learning - identifiable approaches by the learner to the material
being learned.
4. Strategies of second-language communication - identifiable approaches by the learner to
communication with native speakers of the target language.
5. Overgeneralization of target language linguistic material - overgeneralization of target
language rules and semantic features.
By viewing the shape of utterances originating in the interlanguage, as affected by the above
categories, we can better see, according to Selinker, the nature of the psychology of second
language learning.

Fossilization

Selinker, in his theory of an interlanguage, also postulates the concept of 'fossilization, ' wherein
particular 'linguistic items, rules, and subsystems' that a L2 learner will 'tend to keep in their IL
relative to a particular TL no matter what the age of the learner or amount of explanation and
instruction s/he receives in the TL.' These may be items the learner never has completely mastered,
or they can be items which the learner has seemed to master but cannot consistently reproduce,
especially under conditions of anxiety, excitement, or extreme relaxation. It is important, Selinker
notes, to realize that these 'backsliding' events are not random or towards the NL of a speaker, but
are instead towards an interlanguage norm. Combinations of fossilized items are termed 'IL
competences, ' and fossilizations of these IL competences could lend themselves to the production of
new dialects.

other perspectives on interlanguage

Other theories of the nature of interlanguage have been proposed in addition to - and in contrast to -
that of Selinker (1972). Here are just a few:

Corder (1981)

Corder, like Selinker, believes that learners' errors are systematic, regular, and consistent. Because
of this system of errors, he postulates that the interlanguage system is based on knowledge or
"competence" - a well-defined 'personal grammar' of the L2 learner. Through this system, the learner
is 'creating an account of structural properties of the TL, about its grammar, on the basis of his
interaction with the data he is exposed to'. Corrections to this system can occur on an unconscious
acquisition level or through self-correction.

Corder, however, indicates the importance of including an analysis of development within the
interlanguage system. He notes that as interlanguages develop (especially in unstructured learning
situations), they bear resemblance to each other with variability ascribed to the particular learning
situation or personality of the learner. Just as Burt and Dulay (1974 ) have found a natural order in
morpheme acquisition, a general sequence of interlanguage syntax is also recognized, which, Corder
states, implies that there is a property of the human mind which determines the way the learners
process the data of the language to which they are exposed. He makes three important
generalizations concerning this natural order:

1. That younger learners will have more similar interlanguage structures (in part due to the
restricted need for communication) .
2. That the more communicatively oriented the learning setting, the more similar the structural
properties of the learner's interlanguage will be.
3. That, if universal properties exist and a universal grammar exists, then approximative systems
of learners from any NL progressing towards any TL will show similarities.

The idea that a universal grammar is responsible for a natural order in morpheme acquisition among
both adult and child learners' of L1's and L2's raises interesting questions concerning the nature of
the latent language structure of Lenneberg (1967) and the psychological language structure
postulated by Selinker (1972). Selinker's model (1972) is incompatible with the notion of a natural
order of morpheme acquisition in that it allows only a small five percent of adults to access the latent
device responsible for these orders. It is unclear from the original paper whether the psychological
language structure may contain devices bearing resemblance to those in the latent language
structure that may account for natural order sequences in acquisition. For an interesting defense of
the separation of universal grammar from interlanguage, see Chapter 31 (by L. Selinker) in
Interlanguage (Davies et al., 1984).

In accordance with the above discussion, Corder appears to view interlanguage as a developmental
process of transitional competence rather than a process of restructuring or reorganizing. One note
he offers to those who teach L2 learners is to arrange their teaching methods and curriculum to fit
restrictions that these natural orders might impose. For example, teachers should shift from
grammar lessons and drills to a more communicative approach to the TL and should incorporate more
learner-centered, group-learning, and discovery approaches into their lessons.

James, C. (from Corder, 1981) - Interlingua

Believes that the learner's language will show systematic features of the target language and of
other languages s/he may know but mostly the NL. Emphasized one dimension of variability in
interlanguages.

Nemser, W. (1971) - Approximative system

Emphasizes goal-directed development of the language learner towards the TL.

For other interesting advances in the study of interlanguage (Composite Matrix Language), search
under Carol Myers-Scotton (USC-Columbia) and Janice L. Jake ( Midlands Technical College ).

References

Corder, S. P. (1981) Error Analysis and Interlanguage, Oxford : Oxford University Press.

Davies, A. et al. (1984) Interlanguage, Edinburgh : Edinburgh University Press.

Dulay, H.C. and Burt, M.K. (1974) Natural sequences in child second language acquisition, Language
Learning 24, 37-53. Reprinted in Hatch, E.M. (ed.) (1978).

Lado,R. (1961) Linguistics Across Cultures. Ann Arbor : University of Michigan Press.

Lenneberg, Eric H. (1967) Biological Foundations of Language. John Wiley and Sons Inc.

Nemser, W. (1971) Approximate systems of foreign language learners, IRAL 9.2, 115- 23.

Selinker, L. (1972) Interlanguage, IRAL 10.3, 209-31.

Selinker, L. (1988) Papers in interlanguage. Occasional Papers No.44, Southeast Asian Ministers of
Education Organization ( Singapore ): Regional Language Centre. ED321549.

Selinker, L., Swain, M. and Dumas, G. (1975) The interlanguage hypothesis extended to children,
Language Learning 25, 139-52.

© by Ralf Thiede 1997