Interlanguage

While learning a second language, learners build up a system for themselves which is
different in some ways from their first language and second language systems. The system
which the learners build up for themselves has been given various names, but the most widely
used terminology is that suggested by Selinker (1974). He calls this Interlanguage, to
emphasize the structurally intermediate status of the learner’s language system between his
mother tongue and his target language. A detailed study of this Interlanguage could help us to
understand the learners’ problems better and try to provide timely help to learners, so that
they achieve competence in the language they are trying to learn.

Selinker’s Theory of Interlanguage

Based on the theory that there is a ‘psychological structure latent in the brain’ which is
activated when one attempts to learn a second language Selinker (1972) proposes the theory
of Interlanguage. Selinker says 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. This system can be
observed when we study the utterances of the learners who attempt to produce a target
language norm.

To study the psychological processes involved one should compare the Interlanguage of the
learner with two things. These two things are as under:

(1) Utterances in the native language to convey the same message made by the learner.

(2) Utterances in the target language to convey the same message made by the native speaker
of that language.

According to Selinker five central processes are responsible for this Interlanguage. They are:

(1) language transfer,

(2) transfer of training,
(3) strategies of second language learning,
(4) strategies of second language communication and
(5) overgeneralization.

Jean D’Souza (1977) thinks these five processes could be reduced to three, for according to
him, there is no clear cut distinction between processes three, four and five. According to him
overgeneralization could include strategies of second language learning and strategies of
second language communication. Besides he points out that it is not always possible to say
with certainty whether a learner uses a particular form because he thinks it is enough to
communicate effectively or because he is using a particular strategy.

[...]

As Jean D’Souza says one cannot really draw a line between overgeneralization, strategy of
second language learning and second language communication. It seems to be a matter of
looking at the same thing from different points of view. What actually goes on in a learner`s
mind and how he decides to say one thing instead of the other cannot be really perceived. One

M. Rodgers; Language Pedagogy I / Dr. Benjamin Ade-Thurow, M.A.

can only speculate and say this is what probably happens. Unless one is able to study one`s
own mind very objectively while trying to learn a new language, the strategies used cannot be
actually stated. Even if such a study of one’s mind without any subjectivity is possible, this
may not be true of others for each individual has his own peculiar nature, way of learning
things, way of responding to given circumstances etc.

[...]

Whatever the differences may be it is not very difficult to identify a few strategies and study
the learner’s errors from those points of view. Selinker himself says that there could be a
number of other processes in addition to these five processes mentioned by him. Differences
of opinion cannot be avoided since what takes place in the mind of the learners when they
attempt to learn a language, cannot be stated with absolute certainty. Most of the efforts to
understand the process of language learning are speculative and abstract. But the basic
concepts behind the apparent differences of opinion appear to be the same in all cases.

All that one needs to understand is that when children are exposed to a particular language,
they do not learn the grammar of that language straight away. They process the input data and
form certain hypotheses. They cook up their own grammar which may be called G1. If ‘G’ is
the grammar of the language they are learning, they may use and discard a number of
grammars like G1 and G2 before they get to ‘G’. As per their exposure they constantly test
their hypotheses and keep altering it. Hence their grammar at a particular point of time is
systematic and has its own rules. But it is not constant. It keeps changing in line with the
exposure they receive.

Similarly for second language learning all these processes have to be gone through. Hence the
second language learners are almost in the same position as the first language learners but for
the fact that they already have one language in their possession. Since our concepts and ideas
are largely structured by our first language, the learners’ first language has a lot of influence
over them. Hence they could be said to view the second language through their first language
and arrive at a system which is midway between their first and second language. This
intermediary system is given the name ’Interlanguage’ by Selinker. Other terminologies have
also been used by various others to identify this system. Different factors have been
considered as the most important aspect of this system and accordingly the names have been
assigned.

William Nemser calls it ‘Approximative system’. This term emphasizes the transitional and
dynamic nature of the system. Jack Richards thinks it is the ‘Transitional competence’ while
Dulay and Burt say that the learners’ system reveal their ‘Creative construction hypothesis’.
Pit Corder calls it the ‘Idiosyncratic dialect’ of the learners.

Idiosyncratic Dialect

Pit Corder suggested in 1967 that linguistics should study the process of second and foreign
language acquisition and the various strategies learners may use. Since then he has
contributed a number of articles wherein he discusses the nature of the learners’ language. He
calls the learners’ language as their idiosyncratic dialect. Pit Corder (1971) says that this
dialect of the learners is (1) regular, (2) systematic and (3) meaningful.

M. Rodgers; Language Pedagogy I / Dr. Benjamin Ade-Thurow, M.A.

According to Pit Corder, the learners’ utterances can be accounted for by a set of rules. This
set of rules is obtained from the target social dialect. He gives two reasons why the learners’
language should be considered as a dialect of the target language. The two reasons are as
follows:

(1) It is a language and has a grammar.

(2) At least some of the rules in this grammar are the same as those in the target language
grammar.

[...]

Besides, Pit Corder points out that the learners’ utterances should be studied in their
situational context. For often it so happens that the learners’ utterance, though well formed
superficially, does not express what the learners intended to say.

[...]

Pit Corder also points out that the child language and the language of aphasics are all deviant,
idiosyncratic dialects. Poetic language is ‘deliberately deviant’ and the language of the
aphasics is ‘pathologically deviant’. But the dialects of the children and the learners are the
result of the learning process. Here both the children acquiring their mother tongue and the
learners learning a second language go through a similar process, wherein they form
hypotheses about the nature of the language and test them. But the task of the second
language learners is much easier, according to Pit Corder, for they only have to find out how
the system of the new language they are trying to learn differs from the system of their mother
tongue. In so doing they commit a lot of errors, which reveal a lot of mother tongue influence.

The errors committed by the learners which show the influence of their mother tongue are
often labeled as interference errors. The term suggests that old habits are interfering with
those which are yet to be acquired. But according to Pit Corder, possession of a language
makes it easy for the learners to learn a new language, as they have already learnt to adopt
some strategies for language learning and they have only to find out how the new language is
different from their mother tongue. Hence errors are not signs of inhibition but are evidences
which show what strategies the learners are using to acquire a language.

An analysis of the learners’ language could help us adjust our syllabuses to the built-in
syllabus which the learners have made for themselves. But it is not very easy to analyse the
learners’ dialect mainly because of two reasons. Firstly, the learners’ dialect is not stable and
secondly, interpretation is difficult because of the peculiarity of the dialect. But if we
understand the learners’ built-in syllabus through the study of their errors we could create
better conditions for language learning. We could help the learners to improve and adapt their
strategies so that a development of the language takes place in their mind.

[...]

Now it is an accepted fact that learners’ errors should be systematically studied and our
syllabuses should be formed in such a way that they are in line with the strategies used by the
learner.

M. Rodgers; Language Pedagogy I / Dr. Benjamin Ade-Thurow, M.A.

If this can be done “we may be able to allow the learner’s innate strategies to dictate our
practice and determine our syllabus; we may learn to adapt ourselves to his needs rather than
impose upon him our preconceptions of how he ought to learn, what he ought to learn, and
when he ought to learn it” (Pit Corder 1967 /p. 27).

Approximative System

William Nemser (1971) employs the term ‘Approximative system’ to identify a learner’s
linguistic system which is distinct from his mother tongue and the target language he is
attempting to learn. Here by the term ‘approximative’ he means that the learner is progressing
towards the target language and his system is developmental in nature. The term system
implies that he is using a set of rules and hence his language is not at random.

As the learner receives more and more exposure and collects new data, he attempts to change
his system. He constantly tries to alter his system to bring the system closer to the target
language. Hence his system should be studied from three points of view: (1) his mother
tongue, (2) his target language and (3) as an independent system itself.

[...]

Transitional Competence

Jack C. Richards (1971) refers to the learner’s competence at a particular time as the
transitional competence. He says that the learner’s competence at a particular stage is full of
what he calls as intralingual or developmental errors. These errors illustrate some of the
characteristics of language acquisition. The learner’s competence is transitional because it
keeps changing as long as the learner tries to improve his competence. If he stops learning, his
competence at a particular stage becomes his final grammatical competence.

[...]

Richards thinks that an analysis of the learner’s developmental errors should help us to
examine our teaching materials and make them more effective. The language learning
assumptions behind material preparation and teaching practices could be changed, if we
understand how a language is acquired. According to Richards, many teaching practices are
based on the notion that the learner will reproduce exactly whatever is presented in his
textbook or whatever is taught in the classroom. But often this does not happen. If a
systematic study of the learners’ errors is undertaken, we could know the learning strategies
used by the learner and the generalizations formed by him. This should be studied along with
the teaching materials and techniques of presentation through which the learner attempts to
learn the language.

As Richards rightly points out the learner uses his own strategies to learn a language, which
may be independent of the teaching methods. Teachers have often been annoyed at the
learners committing errors in spite of repeated instructions. They just fail to understand why
their learners produce deviant forms when the right forms have been drilled again and again.
They don’t realize that a learner cannot be forced to learn anything by an external syllabus
because he has his own internal syllabus. With this internal syllabus he tries to build up a
system of the target language for himself, through generalizations.

M. Rodgers; Language Pedagogy I / Dr. Benjamin Ade-Thurow, M.A.

[...]

Significance of Error Analysis and Interlanguage for the Teaching of English

Teachers and learners of English as well as syllabus designers and materials producers have
much to gain from the studies of Error Analysis and Interlanguage.

Error Analysis helps the teachers to assess whatever they have taught and whatever the
learners have learnt and make plans for the future. If teachers understand that learners cannot
achieve native speaker’s competence directly, they would be ready to accept the varieties of
language which their learners produce. These varieties may be different from the well-formed
utterances found in the course book drill or dialogue. But a close study of the learners’
English will provide “the sort of data on which realistic predictions about learning and
teaching can be based”. (Richards and Sempson 1974) When teachers realize that learners
have to pass through various stages to achieve competence, they would set more realistic
goals for particular learning situations.

[...]

If the teachers know the nature of the learners’ system to be transitional, they would be on the
look out for items which are fossilized. They would be able to help the learners improve their
competence and bring it as close to native competence as possible. Even if they do not have
the time to carry out systematic analyses, the mere awareness of these concepts would
influence their thinking. They might at least make a mental note of the errors that recur over
long periods of time and treat them appropriately as part of their class work.

If the teachers’ attitude towards errors changes, they would at least encourage the learners to
use the language in the class without worrying about their errors. Since the learners usually
reflect the teacher’s attitude, they will make attempts to form hypotheses and test them
without any inhibition. They would use the language to express their feelings and attitudes.
instead of writing on some stale topics which are suggested by the teachers. They would
actively participate in the learning process.

Source: H M Patel Institute of English Training & Research, Vallabh Vidyanagar - 388120,
Gujarat, India, Phone : 091-2692-230193, 091-2692-230079
eMail : [email protected], http://www.hmpenglish.com/interlanguage.htm [06.10.2004]

M. Rodgers; Language Pedagogy I / Dr. Benjamin Ade-Thurow, M.A.