An interlanguage is an idiolect 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. Several factors can shape interlanguage rules, including L1 transfer, previous learning strategies, strategies of L2 acquisition, L2 communication strategies, and the overgeneralization of L2 language patterns. Interlanguage theory 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 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. 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. This assumption was often anecdotal, and research claims were prone to confirmation bias. In 1957, Robert Lado said that contrastive analysis should be viewed as hypothetical unless it was based on systematic analyses of learner speech data. 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. 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. 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. 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. This comparison reveals a separate linguistic system. Interlanguage varies by context, and may be more accurate, complex, and fluent in one discourse domain than in another. 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. Preference may also be based on linguistic variables, such as the phonological environment or neighboring features denoting formality or informality. 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. 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").
… excerpt ends here. Continue reading the full article.
