Interlanguage

Prepared by
MA.Candidate Zahraa Salim
Supervised by
Asst. Prof. Manal No’met Abdul Hadi
Defining Interlanguage
According to Richard et al (1996) interlanguage is one of the
kinds of language that can be produced by second language
learners in the process of acquiring or learning a new language.
According to Selinker (2009) the term of interlanguage who
referred to as second language systematic knowledge
independent of first language and second language.
according to Selinker (2012) interlanguage is that
linguistic/cognitive space that exists between the native
language and the language that one is learning. Interlanguages
are non-native languages which are created and spoken
whenever there is language contact.
A constant use of Netspeak features might hinder the process of second
or foreign language learning as it creates confusions by giving an extra
input to the existing Interlanguage phenomenon experienced by most
ESL/EFL learners .
The Interlanguage Representation
 It is now almost 51 years since Selinker (1972) coined the term
‘Interlanguage’ . The initial formulation of Learner-language as
systematic but unstable and as a reflection of the learner’s ‘built-in
syllabus’ has remained largely intact, although it is now generally
realized that the systematicity of interlanguage (IL). Can only be
adequately described in terms of variable rules which capture the
context-dependency of the learner’s use of his internalized
grammar( Dickerson 1975, Huebner 1979).
 It is also recognized that IL is not a simple accumulative process but
rather a continuum in which overlapping stages can be identified
(Corder 1980). The principle opinion of IL theory, that the learner
constructs for himself a series of hypothesis about the grammar of
the target language and consciously or unconsciously tests these
out in formal or informal learning context.
The Interlanguage Representation
Interlanguage has been the main development of field
research on second language acquisition (SLA).
Selinker (1972) posited that it is – that some construction
in the interlanguage of adults virtually always fossilize, or
stop developing somewhere short of the learners’ TL goal.
Fossilization may be the most enduring characteristic of
interlanguage. And according to Selinker, fossilization is
related to backslidings, which is: “the regular
reappearance in second language performance of the
learner” (1972, p. 211).
The Interlanguage Representation
Selinker argues that the best data to use to infer the structure
of IL are utterances (implied to be oral utterances) that the
learner produces when focused on meaning. We might say
that these utterances are the product of the learner’s
competence or knowledge system.
IL focusing on individuals and their cognitive processes; IL
appears to be modeled as a product of individual
construction.
The Interlanguage Representation
Selinker (1972: 214) construes IL to be the
implicit systematic linguistic system that
produces learner language, and not so much
the explicit system of learned grammar rules
a learner turns to when focused on form.
This proposal that there are two L2
knowledge systems, one conscious and one
unconscious.
Interlanguage Interference

 In term of the interference, it is stated by Corder (1974) that interlingual

interference is the errors caused by learners' mother tongue interference. In the
study it was found that most of the errors were interfered by subjects’ L1. This is
relevant to what Richard and Sampson (2015) called as language transfer. As one
of factors influencing language learners’ system, language transfer from L1 to
target language frequently appeared in most cases. In this study, language transfer
occurred in grammatical influence which resulted in all errors by subjects.
Grammatical influence from L1 on the learners’ production target language was
characterized in subject and verb agreement, noun plural form, and tenses. In
subject and verb agreement, the use of copula is mostly omitted because it does
not function as the verb in L1. For the noun plural form, in subjects’ L1, the
plurality is not signified by morpheme addition. Lastly, the learners transferred the
grammatical structure in L1 tenses to all time aspect. In L1, there are not the verb
changes to refer to past, present, or future. Instead, the time signals occurred in
the adverb of time.
Intralanguage
The term interlanguage was divided into two by Brown
(1980), namely interlanguage and intralanguage forms.
Brown (1980) believes that interlanguage forms happen
when the students’ compositions are influenced by the
pattern and the students’ knowledge of their mother tongue
or native language. Meanwhile, intralanguage forms happen
when the compositions are influenced by target language
being learned by the students.
Intralanguage occurs due to the misuse of a particular rule of
the target language (Richards, 1971). This happens since the
target language influences the students’ composition while
their native language has nothing to do with this ill-form
(Brown, 1994).
Interlingual Error
 Interference, language transfer, and cross-linguistic interference
are also known as interlingual errors. Corder (1981) states that
these kinds of error occur when the learner’s habits (patterns,
systems or rules) interfere or prevent him or her, to some extent,
from acquiring the patterns and rules of the second language.
Lado (1964) said Interference (negative transfer) is negative
influence of the mother tongue (L1) on the performance of the
target language (L2). Chelli (2013) defined that interlingual errors
are the result of language transfer, which is caused by learner’s
first language. Richard (1974:173) states if the learners of a
foreign language make mistake in the target language by effect of
his mother tongue that is called as interlingual. As stated by
Brown (1980: 160), most of the learners’ errors in the second
language result primarily from the learner’s assumption that the
second language forms are similar to the native language.
Intralingual Error
Interference from the student’s own language is not the only
reason for committing errors. Students may make mistake in
the target language, since they do not know the target
language very well, they have difficulties in using it. Richard
(1974: 6) states, intralingual interference refers to items
produced by learner, which reflect not the structure of mother
tongue, but generalization based on partial exposure of the
target language. Brown (1980: 162) said that it has been
found that the early stages of language learning are
characterized by a predominance of interlingual transfer, but
once that learner has begun to acquire parts of the new
system, more and more transfer generalization within the
target language is manifested.
Richard (1974: 120) classifies the intralingual errors into four categories including:

 1) Overgeneralization: it happens when a learner creates a deviant structure

on the basis of his experience of other structure in the target language. Little
wood (1984) cites the example of forming plural by adding “s” to even
irregular plurals, also generalizing the “-ed” past form.
 2) Ignorance of Rule Restrictions: James (1998: 63) that ignorance is
specific in the sense that one is normally said to be ignorant of structure; the
learner of the second language does not obey the structure of the target
language. In this type of error, the learner fails to observe the restrictions of
existing structures. Some rule restriction errors may be accounted for in
terms of analogy and may result from the role learning of rules.
 3) Incomplete Application of the Rules: this error may occur when learner
fails to apply the rules completely due to the stimulus sentence.
 4) False Concept Hypothesized: learners’ faulty understanding of
distinctions of target language items leads to false conceptualization.
Learners’ faulty understanding of distinctions of target language items leads
to false concept hypothesized.
Intralanguage
 Intralanguage refers to variations or differences within a single language.
These variations can occur at different levels such as pronunciation
(accent), vocabulary (lexicon), grammar (syntax), and spelling.
Intralanguage variations are often associated with factors like geographical
regions, social classes, age groups, and professional groups among others.
For example, the English language spoken in the United States (American
English) and the United Kingdom (British English) exhibit intralanguage
variations in terms of pronunciation, vocabulary, and spelling.
 Intralanguage, or intralingual, refers to phenomena that occur within a
single language, often pertaining to variations and adaptations. This term
is used in both linguistics and translation studies. It involves processes
that are monolingual, meaning they occur within the same language, such
as adapting a text to a different form or style within the same language.
For instance, intralanguage translation might involve adapting a complex
scientific text into simpler language for a general audience, while still
remaining in the same language. Intralanguage can also refer to issues
related to culture, dialects, and learning concerning one specific language
Fossilization

 Larry Selinker, professor of linguistics at the University of Michigan,

coined the term “fossilization” in his 1972 paper Interlanguage (IL).
 "The process of learning a second language (L2) is characteristically
non-linear and fragmentary, marked by a mixed landscape of rapid
progression in certain areas but slow movement, or even permanent
stagnation in others. Such a process results in a linguistic system
known as 'interlanguage' (Selinker, 1972), which, to varying degrees,
approximates that of the target language (TL).
 In the earliest conception (Corder, 1967; Nemser, 1971; Selinker,
1972), interlanguage is metaphorically a halfway house between the
first language (L1) and the TL, hence 'inter.' The L1 is purportedly the
source language that provides the initial building materials to be
gradually blended with materials taken from the TL, resulting in new
forms that are neither in the L1 nor in the TL.
 Interlanguage and Fossilization
 Brown's (2007:270) idea of fossilization differs from Selinker and Ellis as he
states that it can be prevented. He uses metaphor of “cryogenation”,the
process of freezing matter at very low temperatures; to depict the reversibility
of fossilization. He assumed that fossilization as a factor of positive and
negative affective and cognitive feedback. It means that fossilization can be
overcome by giving feedback. Giving a feedback will encourage student to
retry, to restate, to reformulate, or to draw a different hypothesis about a rule.
 Based on the above quotations, it can be inferred that interlanguage
fossilization is the linguistic phenomena which the language students’
interlanguage is stabilized permanently. The students frequently use
inappropriate linguistic features in the target language. They use incorrect
language form permanently before reaching the correct linguistic forms of
target language. Furthermore, fossilization is cognitive process in language
learning, stabilized interlanguage permanently shows occurring fossilization in
the target language learning
Characteristics of Interlanguage
Selinker’s interlanguage hypothesis assumes that interlanguage are
natural languages, which are systematic throughout their
development. Needless to say, interlanguage system bears some
features of its own. They are:
 1- Interlanguage is dynamic and permeable. It serves as a bridge
between L1 and L2 when learners lack knowledge and fine mastery
of rules, but over time, learners progress. They refine certain rules
and obtain new ones. Their competence changes and their
interlanguage starts to reflect those changes. First they may say: ''I
no swimming,'' which later becomes: ''I don't swimming,'' until it
reaches perfection: ''I don't swim.'' The process of constant
extension and revision of rules reflects IL's tendency to change. IL's
rules are not fixed: they're altered, deleted, or added. Permeability
is one of the keys in language development that makes learner’s
knowledge at any stage is not fixed but is open to amendment.
Characteristics of Interlanguage

2- Interlanguage is systematic. Although

different learners have different interlanguage,
they all have their own rules within their
variations. They may not align with the actual
rules but they are systematic: ''I received
money, I buyed a new car, and I selled it.'' Rules
are set in predictable ways.
Characteristics of Interlanguage

3-Interlanguage is variable. Learner's performance is variable.

They may apply the same rule differently in separate contexts
or domains. Accuracy and fluency vary across occasions as
learners have alternative rules for the same function. In a
classroom setting, where the learner is focused on producing
grammatically correct sentences, they may say: ''I don't drink
coffee.'' In a spontaneous conversation, the same meaning
can be expressed as: ''I no drink coffee.'
Five Key Factors for the Formation of Interlanguage Selinker (1972) lists five factors
directly affecting the output of the interlanguage system, which are language
 1- Language transfer refers to the transfer of the learner’s L1, including linguistic
and cultural aspects, to his/her organizing the L2 data, learners’ interlanguage
systems are greatly influenced by them. When the characteristics of the L1
expressions the learner refers to are the same as or similar to those of the L2
expressions, the transfer is positive, that is, the transfer facilitates the learning of
TL; otherwise, the transfer becomes an interlingual interference, namely,
negative transfer .Negative language transfer is an important factor of causing
learners’ errors, including linguistic and pragmatic ones, though not the sole
factor leading to interlanguage.
 Linguistic transfer would most probably occur when L1 and L2 share a meaning
but express it in a different or slightly different way. For example: Chinese
expression and English expression “...because...”and “...so...”. They have the same
meaning, but they can not be used in the same way, for the reason that in
English“...because...” and “...so...” could not be placed together in one sentence.
Culturally unacceptable.
Five Key Factors for the Formation of Interlanguage Selinker (1972) lists five
factors directly affecting the output of the interlanguage system:
2-Transfer of Training “If a learner is taking part in formal
instruction, some errors will be a direct result of
misunderstanding caused by faulty teaching or materials”.
 Transfer of training refers to the phenomenon that L2
learners may have done excessive training on certain
interlanguage structures that they cannot successfully
continue to develop the new structures. Transfer of training
cannot only cause errors but also reinforce erroneous
forms. Generally, ways and materials of training and
teachers are the two main elements that affect language
training.
 Five Key Factors for the Formation of Interlanguage Selinker (1972) lists five
factors directly affecting the output of the interlanguage system:
3. Strategies of L2 learning: Strategies are any thoughts,
behaviors, beliefs, or emotions that facilitate the acquisition, or
later transfer of new knowledge and skills. It was inspired by
Chomsky’s theory of generative grammar which argues that
many original utterances are generated by the language learner
depending on their own underlying competence, which implied
that a key role for the learner in building their competence.
Accordingly, they started researching the learners’ techniques
and strategies to develop their L1 or L2. These are the
techniques or devices which a learner may use to acquire
knowledge.
Five Key Factors for the Formation of Interlanguage Selinker (1972) lists five factors
directly affecting the output of the interlanguage system:
4- Strategies of L2 Communication
 In real communication, learners may sometimes turn to
communication strategies, a systematic skill that a speaker
resorts to while having difficulties in expression to keep the
communication going on. Unfortunately, sometimes such
“successful use of communication strategies will prevent
acquisition” , Ellis says, for the learner may become “skillful”
in making up for lack of linguistic knowledge by the use of
various communication strategies so that the need to learn
new TL knowledge decreases.
Five Key Factors for the Formation of Interlanguage Selinker (1972) lists five
factors directly affecting the output of the interlanguage system:
 5- Overgeneralization of TL:
 Overgeneralization of TL refers to the interlanguage cognition produced in
expanding TL rule. According to Richard’s viewpoint, overgeneralization includes
learners’ expanding or mixing some language rules . The premise of
overgeneralization is the similarity of suitable objects of the rules. But the
essence of overgeneralization is the similar analogy. Individual similarity may
become partial or all similarity. Once generalization is excessive, errors will
appear. However, this kind of cognition is normal with regard to the development
of learning process. The foundation of interlanguage cognition is reflected in L2
learning process. For example, in sentence “Tom goed there”, learners may
expand past tense form of regular verb to irregular verb “go”. The sentence “The
professor let us to recite the text”, suggests that learners apply the rules of
infinitive verbs in a wrong way. In sentence “Tom asked me whether was I willing
to go together with him”, learners are not clear of the rules that there is no need
to invert subjects and objects when the interrogative sentence serves as the
object subordinate clause.
REFERENES
 Brown, H. D. (2007). Principles of language learning and teaching (5th edition),San Francisco State
University: Pearson Longman.
 Brown, H, Douglass. 1980. Principles of Language Learning and Teaching, New Jersey: Prentice
Hall Inc.
 Corder, S.P. (1967). ‘The Significance of Learner's Errors’, IRAL, 5/4 NOV, 161-170
 Ellis, R. (1994). The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
 Han, Z& Tarone, E. (2014). Interlanguage forty years later. John Benjamins Publishing company.

 Griffiths, C. Parr, J. (2001). Language-Learning Strategies: Theory and Perception. ELT Journal, v55.
 Lado, R. 1964. Language Teaching: A Scientific Approach in Students’ Text. McGraw-Hill: USA

 Selinker, L. (1989). Interlanguage. IRAL: International Review of applied Linguistics in Language

Teaching.
 Selinker, L. (1972). ‘Interlanguage’, IRAL, 10/3 AUG, 209-241
 Richards, J. (1974). Analysis: Perspective on second language acquisition. In J. C. Richards (Eds.), A
non-contrastive approach to error analysis (pp. 172-188). London: Longman.
 Nemser, W. (1971). Approximative systems of foreign language learners. International Review of
Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 9(2), 115-123.
 Tarone, E. and B. Swierzbin. 2009. Exploring learner language. Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress.