Tomasz Niestorowicz

John Paul II Catholic University of Lublin

Department of Language Acquisition and Didactics

The Phenomenon of Interlanguage in the Process

of Second Language Acquisition

SUMMARY

This article discusses the phenomenon of interlanguage in the process of second language
acquisition. A number of researchers claim that the interlanguage can be characterized by funda-
mental features like fossilization, systematicity and simplification. This article also addresses the
problem of significant psycholinguistic processes which influence the evolution of interlanguage.
Key words: second language acquisition, interlanguage, fossilization

INTRODUCTION

The term interlanguage1 introduced by Larry Selinker (1972) refers to the

independent linguistic system which in the process of second / foreign language
acquisition shows specific, idiosyncratic features related to the characteristics of
the native language (L1) and the target language (L2).
Although the concept of interlanguage is related to the process of the second
language acquisition, Selinker indirectly refers to the concept of Language Acqui-
sition Device introduced by Noam Chomsky. This device, or a universal innate
ability to acquire a language, allows children to construct grammatical structures
based on the system of rules which derive from universal grammar (Chomsky
1964, 1965, 1975). Selinker also refers to the analogical concept of Eric Len-
1
Selinker is the author of the term based on Uriel Weinreich’s interlingual (1953), whereas
the phenomenon itself was identified by Corder (1967) as transitional competence. Nemser used the
term approximative system, emphasizing that the process of interlanguage evolution shifts towards
the target language.
32 Tomasz Niestorowicz

neberg’s latent language structure (1967). In his Critical Period Hypothesis, Len-
neberg states that unless the process of language acquisition commences before
an individual reaches adolescence, the complete acquisition of a linguistic system
at later age is not possible. At the “critical age” brain loses its high plasticity,
a feature that characterises the developmental period2. However, most researchers
agree that as far as the process of the second language acquisition is concerned,
there only exist the period of increased sensitivity to language, whereas age is
barely one of many factors that have an impact on successful second language
acquisition (Oyama 1976; Patkowski 1980).
According to Selinker, an adult who learns a second language develops
a mechanism of latent psychological structure. This mechanism may be activated
when a person makes an attempt to express something in a foreign language. Ac-
cording to Selinker, the differences between latent psychological structure and
latent linguistic structure include:
1. latent linguistic structure is conditioned genetically, whereas its psycho-
logical equivalent is not an innate structure,
2. latent psychological structure does not have any point of reference in gram-
matical structures of a given language, thus it is not related to the existence of
universal grammar, it may, however, refer to other mental structures,
3. finally, latent psychological structure cannot be activated, and what is more,
may appear only in the interlanguage of a person studying a foreign language;
this structure, therefore, is not present in the process of the first language acquisi-
tion.
Interlanguage can be perceived as a continuum between the poles defined by
the native language (L1) and the target language (L2). The development of inter-
language is presented in the figure below3:

Fig. 1 The development of interlanguage. Source: Montrul, 2014.

2
For both Lenneberg and the original authors of the “critical age” concept in language acquisi-
tion context (Penfield, Roberts 1959), it was also brain lateralisation that had a crucial role in the
process of acquiring languages.
3
Montrul 2014, p. 79.
The Phenomenon of Interlanguage in the Process of Second... 33

Intermediate stages are characterised by instability, which can indicate not

only the progress of the development of interlanguage, but also its regress. The
initial state is characterised by the increased transfer of native language elements
into the source language. It should be noted that this tendency becomes weaker
if the development of the interlanguage increases. Assuming that interlanguage is
a specific system that undergoes constant reorganisation, it may be problematic
to determine the end state of the development of interlanguage (Larsen-Freeman
2014).
According to the interlanguage researchers, this specific language exhibits
certain basic features (which will be discussed further in the article) such as: fos-
silization, systematicity, and simplification. The article also discusses selected is-
sues related to the existence of psycholinguistic processes which, according to
Selinker (1972), significantly affect the development of interlanguage4.

FEATURES OF INTERLANGUAGE

The term fossilization, discussed by Selinker (1972/1983), refers to the situ-

ation when the acquisition of the second language is stopped before a person has
reached the level of a native user. Many researchers claim that adults who learn
a foreign language rarely reach native-like language competence. This constitutes
a fundamental difference in the process of the second language acquisition be-
tween children and adults (Tarone 2006). The process of language development
among children is nearly always successful, except for a low percentage of dis-
orders. Selinker’s observations confirm, however, that only approximately 5% of
adults succeed in mastering the target language (Selinker 1972/1983).
Therefore, the question concerning the access of an adult to universal gram-
mar in the process of the second language acquisition is legitimate. In the Fun-
damental Difference Hypothesis, Bley-Vroman (1990) argues that adult learners
very rarely reach native-like language competence. He also discusses various fac-
tors that differentiate the process of the second language acquisition from the pro-
cess of the first language acquisition. The difference between the two processes
stems, first of all, from the fact that adult learners do not have direct access to
universal grammar. Another factor is the phenomenon of fossilization, which does
not occur in the process of the first language acquisition by children.
According to many researchers (Liceras 1986; Flynn 1987; Felix 1988), uni-
versal grammar is accessible to adult learners only through their first language.
Although fundamental changes are unlikely to occur at the level of the establish-
ing of the parameters typical of a given first language, universal rules typical of
all natural languages should still be accessible to adult learners (Liceras 1996).

4
Niestorowicz, 2014.
34 Tomasz Niestorowicz

The research conducted by Johnson and Newport (1989) analysed negative

correlation between age and the ability to achieve native-like, or nearly native-like
competence in the second language. The authors studied correlation between the
age at which linguistic immersion of immigrants from different walks of life in the
United States commenced, and the successful acquisition of the English language.
The authors claim that the earlier the immersion in second language occurs, the
higher are the learner’s chances for achieving native-like competence.
The majority of the studies focused on language competence in terms of mor-
phosyntax; there are also analyses (Neufeld 1980; Flege 1984) that examine the
importance of pronunciation in the process of the second language acquisition, as
well as a given language’s susceptibility to fossilization at the phonological level.
The acquisition of native-like accent in a foreign language seems to be possible
only if the process of learning begins already during childhood; this particular
linguistic aspect has neurobiological foundations (Scovel, 1988).
Many researchers (White, Genesee 1996; DeKeyser 2000) do not consider
age to be an important factor affecting successful second language acquisition.
The findings of their research reveal that people who started learning a foreign
language as adults may also develop native-like competence despite their limited
access to universal grammar. The researchers point to other factors that play an
important role in the process of the second language acquisition. Among other
things, these factors include: the motivation of a learner, linguistic abilities (such
as phonetic encoding, grammatical sensitivity), personality traits, learning strate-
gies, and environmental aspects.
Discussing another feature of interlanguage – systematicity – Selinker claims
that the existence of an independent linguistic system can be confirmed by the
language production of foreign language learners. Nemser (1974: 55), who dis-
cusses the interlanguage structure, claims that the approximate system is a lin-
guistic system that deviates from linguistic standards and emphasizes its structure
(or a series of consecutive structures: La1 ... n) that is different from the native and
target languages. Interlanguage shows the cohesion typical of a system, though it
undergoes constant restructuring and frequent changes. The interlanguage’s struc-
tural independence from native and target languages is manifested in the existence
of elements that cannot be related to either of the two languages (for example the
realisation of /θ/ phoneme as [fθ] or [sθ] by people who learn English)5.
Corder (1971, 1981, 14–18) approaches interlanguage as a special kind of a
dialect. It is an idiosyncratic dialect that, in sociolinguistic terms, is not used by
any community. However, it reflects specific and individual features of a transient
language of a person learning a second language (the author uses this term refer-
ring to the language of children and the language of people suffering from apha-

5
Nemser, 1974, p. 58.
The Phenomenon of Interlanguage in the Process of Second... 35

sia). According to Corder, the idiosyncratic dialect exhibits some typical system-
atic features: regularity, and characteristic grammar; it can be, therefore, described
by rules. The author agrees with Nemser and claims that certain similarities can
be found in the interlanguage of people learning a foreign language at elementary
level and in an informal context.
Corder does not consider idiosyncratic dialect to be a system deviating from
linguistic standards. He believes that it is as a correct system equipped with its
own grammar, and which can be seen also among children who learn their first
language. Richards (1974b, 88) shares this opinion, and he does not define inter-
language as a ‘deviated system’ unless it refers to ‘transient deviation’, as in the
case of children’s language:

The learner of any L2 has a propensity to construct for himself this interlingua, an act of
linguistic creativity so natural that it would be unrealistic to expect learners to circumvent it
and proceed directly from his L1 to the native speaker’s version of the L2. (…) Accepting
the interlingua, like accepting a child’s non-standard speech, avoids the necessity to halt the
communication process for the sake of the learning process.

Analysing another feature of interlanguage, that is simplification, Corder re-

fers to the categories of simplified linguistic codes. They include, among others:
– simplified language registers used in specific communicative situations:
talking to children, referred to as baby talk; or talking to foreigners, referred to as
foreigner talk;
– languages of simplified structures, that is languages of a pidgin type (Hall
1966), which do not have native users and develop in communicative situations
among groups that do not share a common linguistic system;
– finally, children’s language, which develops during the process of the first
language acquisition, and interlanguage, which develops during second language
acquisition.
The simplified linguistic codes mentioned above share similar features such
as6:
– at the morphosyntactic level: elimination of redundant morphemes (gram-
matical number and gender), simplified usage of articles and personal pronouns,
usage of non-flectional forms instead of flectional ones, and simplified and un-
changeable word order,
– at the lexical level: a limited number of lexical elements that are also char-
acterized by strong polysemy.
Corder (1981, 82) claims that when referring to the process of the develop-
ment of interlanguage as a linguistic code, characterised by simplification, one
may observe the process of complication; this is the process of the development

6
Corder, 1981.
36 Tomasz Niestorowicz

of interlanguage that resembles the process of transformation of a pidgin into a

creole language.

PROCESSES INFLUENCING THE DEVELOPMENT

OF INTERLANGUAGE

Interlanguage is formed during five psycholinguistic processes, which

Selinker (1972) associates with the existence of “latent psychological structure.”
The processes that influence the development of interlanguage contain: a) native
language transfer, b) transfer of training, c) strategies of second language learning,
d) strategies of second language communication, and e) overgeneralization of TL
linguistic material.
According to Selinker, the first process, namely language transfer at the pho-
nological, morphosyntactic and lexical and semantical levels, is an important, but
not crucial, element forming interlanguage; researchers focusing on contrastive
analysis considered it to be crucial. The contrastive analysis paradigm based on
Charles Fries’ (1945) and Robert Lado’s (1957) theories, defined native language
transfer (referred to as interference) as a main source of difficulties in the process
of the second language acquisition. According to Lado’s basic assumptions, the el-
ements of a native language that differ from the elements of a target language will
cause problems in the process of learning, whereas similar elements will make the
whole process easier. Adopting a sociolinguistic perspective, Weinreich (1953)
uses the same term (interference) while referring to the transfer of elements from
one language to another in bilingual situations.
Selinker has been inspired by a different idea offered by Weinreich (1953,
7–8), who observes a phenomenon called “interlingual associations”, or “inter-
lingual identifications” when two or more languages meet. This phenomenon is
related to the second language learners’ tendency to compare phonemes, gram-
matical relations, or semantic features in their native and target languages. As far
as phonology is concerned, it may refer to /b/ phoneme in the Spanish language,
which may be produced as a fricative bilabial sound [ß], and which does not ex-
ist in Polish. At the lexical and semantic level, a Spanish language learner may
identify the meaning of Spanish traducir as a Polish word tłumaczyć. This iden-
tification is partly correct since the Spanish word traducir signifies only written
translation, whereas interpretar signifies oral translation.
Another psycholinguistic process that influences the evolution of interlan-
guage refers to the transfer associated with teaching/learning the second language
in formal context, or formal circumstances. The role of the foreign language
teacher, the choice of methodology (learning aids, appropriate course book) may
determine success of the second language acquisition. The teacher may have
a positive impact on the whole learning process, but he/she may also provide
The Phenomenon of Interlanguage in the Process of Second... 37

inappropriate pronunciation examples. The choice of methodology (for example

to what extent communication skills in a foreign language are trained) and the
course book (clear and coherently structured content) are important. All these as-
pects related to the teaching process can, on the one hand, have a positive influ-
ence on the learning process, and on the other, they may lead to errors, defined in
glottodidactics as induced errors (Stenson 1974).
What is also significant in the process of interlanguage formation, are learn-
ing strategies and communicative strategies used during teaching / learning pro-
cess. Learning strategies are defined as cognitive and metacognitive mechanisms
used by foreign language learners (Wenden 1987). These include mnemonic tech-
niques, or conscious planning and monitoring the process of learning. With the
use of communicative strategies, learners attempt to solve problems that appear
when a given message in a foreign language is being conveyed and the compe-
tence of learners is limited (Tarone 1977; Białystok 1983). Hence the mechanisms
that exert negative influence on the development of interlanguage may be used.
These mechanisms include, for example, avoidance strategy, which is based on the
modification, reduction, or even the abandonment of a given message; or code-
switching strategy, that is the introduction of native language (or other-language)
elements in a given message. It can be assumed that compensation strategies fos-
ter the development of interlanguage and they include paraphrasing technique,
substitution, the employment of non-verbal techniques, or requests for help to
fulfil the communicative aim (cf. Tarone 2006).
The last process that has an impact on the development of interlanguage is
the overgeneralization of the target language grammatical rules. Foreign language
learners at the beginning acquire basic grammatical rules and they may, therefore,
tend to regularise these rules. This phenomenon can be observed at the level of
inflection level and generalization of conjugative paradigms (for example using
*dormo instead of duermo in Spanish, or *goed instead of went in English).
Many researchers point out that the overgeneralization of rules also occurs
during the first language acquisition among children. Taking into account the
analogy presented above, such errors made by the second language learners are
referred to as developmental errors (Richards 1974a; Dulay, Burt, Krashen 1982;
Schachter, Celce-Murcia 1983; Ellis 1994). The progress of the second language
acquisition should be associated with the elimination of such errors; unfamiliarity
with the limitations of certain grammatical rules, or formation of invalid hypoth-
eses due to deficient linguistic competence, on the other hand, may show the lack
of progress or regress in the process of the evolution of interlanguage.
38 Tomasz Niestorowicz

CONCLUSION

The concept of interlanguage is a continuation of previous research para-

digms: the model of constructive analysis and the model of error analysis, At
the same time, this concept is a new phase in the description of the language
acquired by the second language learner. What seems to be crucial in the analysis
of interlanguage is the fossilization of linguistic structures, which prevents adult
learners from achieving native-like competence. What should also be remembered
is the fact that age (early commencement of language learning) is a significant
factor that conditions successful second language acquisition. It should be also
mentioned that non-biological factors that play an important role in the process
include learners’ motivation, and environmental aspects.
Studies on interlanguage discussed mainly adults who learned the second lan-
guage in a bilingual environment and they focused on the comparison between
the second language acquisition by adults and the first language acquisition by
children. Further studies should discuss the issues related to the development of
interlanguage among children in the context of the second language acquisition.

Bibliography

Białystok E., 1983, Some factors in the selection and implementation of communication strategies,
[in:] Strategies in interlanguage communication, ed. C. Faerch, G. Kasper, Harlow, 100–118.
Bley-Vroman R., 1989, The logical problem of foreign language learning, “Linguistic Analysis”,
20, pp. 3–49.
Chomsky N., 1964, Current issues in linguistic theory, Mouton, The Hague.
Chomsky N., 1965, Aspects of the Theory of Syntax, M.I.T. Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Chomsky N., 1975, Reflections on language, Pantheon, New York.
Corder S.P., 1971, Idiosyncratic dialects and error analysis, “International Review of Applied Lin-
guistics”, 9, pp. 147–160. Reprinted in Corder S.P., 1981, Error Analysis and Interlanguage,
Oxford University Press, Oxford.
DeKeyser R. M., 2000, The robustness of critical period effects in second language acquisition,
“Studies in Second Language Acquisition”, 22, pp. 499–533.
Dulay H., Burt M., Krashen S., 1982, Language two, Oxford University Press, New York.
Ellis R., 1994, The Study of Second Language Acquisition, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Felix S., 1988, UG-generated knowledge in adult second language acquisition, [in:] Linguistic the-
ory in second language acquisition, eds. S. Flynn, W. O’Neil, Dordrecht, pp. 277–294.
Flege J., 1984, The detection of French accent by American listeners, “Journal of the. Acoustical
Society of America”, 76, pp. 692–707.
Flynn S., 1987, A parameter-setting model of L2 acquisition. Experimental studies in anaphora,
Reidel, Dordrecht.
Fries C., 1945, Teaching and learning English as second language, University of Michigan Press,
Ann Arbor.
Hall R. A., 1966, Pidgin and Creole Languages, Cornell University Press, Ithaca.
Johnson J. S., Newport E. L., 1989, Critical Period Effects in Second Language Learning: The Influ-
ence of Maturational State on the Acquisition of English as a Second Language, “Cognitive
Psychology”, 21, pp. 60–99.
The Phenomenon of Interlanguage in the Process of Second... 39

Lado R., 1957, Linguistics Across Cultures, University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor.
Lars-Freeman D., 2014, Another step to be taken – Rethinking the end point of the interlan-
guage continuum, [in:] Interlanguage: forty years later, eds. Z. Han, E. Tarone, Amsterdam,
pp. 203–220.
Lenneberg E., 1967, Biological Foundations of Language, Wiley, New York.
Liceras J., 1986, Sobre el concepto de la permeabilidad, “Revista española de lingüística aplicada”,
2, 49–61.
Liceras J., 1996, La adquisición de lenguas segundas y la gramática universal, Síntesis, Madrid.
Montrul S., 2014, Interlanguage, transfer and fossilization: Beyond second language acquisition,
[in:] Interlanguage: forty years later, eds. Z. Han, E. Tarone, Amsterdam, pp. 75–104.
Nemser W., 1974, Approximative systems of foreign language learners, [in:] Error Analysis: Per-
spectives on Second Language Acquisition, ed. J. C. Richards, London/New York, pp. 55–63.
Neufeld G., 1980, On the Adult’s Ability to Acquire Phonology, “TESOL Quarterly”, 14, pp. 285–
298.
Niestorowicz T., 2014, La adquisición de la oposición imperfecto/indefinido en la interlengua de
estudiantes polacos de español como lengua extranjera (unpublished doctoral dissertation),
The Catholic University of Lublin.
Oyama S., 1976, A sensitive period for the acquisition of a nonnative phonological system, “Journal
of Psycholinguistic Research”, 5, pp. 261–283.
Patkowski M., 1980, The sensitive period for the acquisition of syntax in a second language, “Lan-
guage Learning”, 30, pp. 449–472.
Penfield W., Roberts L., 1959, Speech and Brain Mechanisms, Princeton University Press, Princ-
eton.
Richards J. C., 1974a, A Non-Contrastive Approach to Error Analysis, [in:] Error Analysis: Perspec-
tives on Second Language Acquisition, ed. J. C. Richards, London/New York, pp. 172–188.
Richards J. C., 1974b, Social Factors, Interlanguage and Language Learning, [in:] Error Analy-
sis: Perspectives on Second Language Acquisition, ed. J. C. Richards, London/New York,
pp. 64–91.
Selinker L., 1972, Interlanguage, “International Review of Applied Linguistics”, 10, pp. 209–231.
Reprinted in Second Language Learning: Contrastive Analysis, Error Analysis and Related
Aspects, ed. B. W. Robinett., J. .Schachter (1983), Ann Arbor, pp. 173–195.
Scovel T., 1988, A time to speak: a psycholinguistic inquiry into the critical period for human
speech, Newbury House, Rowley.
Schachter J., Celce-Murcia M., 1983, Some Reservations Concerning Error Analysis, [in:] Second
Language Learning: Contrastive Analysis, Error Analysis and Related Aspects, eds. B. W.
Robinett, J. Schachter, Ann Arbor, pp. 272–284.
Stenson N., 1974, Induced errors, [in:] New Frontiers in Second Language Learning, eds. J. H.
Schumann, N. Stenson, Rowley, pp. 54–70.
Tarone E., 1977, Conscious communication strategies in interlanguage: A progress report, [in:] On
TESOL ’77, eds. H. Brown, C. Yorio, R. Crymes, Washington, pp. 194–203.
Tarone E., 2006, Interlanguage, [in:] Encyclopaedia of Language and Linguistics, Vol. 5, ed.
K. Brown, Oxford, pp. 747–752.
Weinreich U., 1953, Languages in contact, Mouton, The Hague.
Wenden A. L., 1987, Conceptual background and utility, [in:] Learner strategies in language learn-
ing, eds. A. L. Wenden, J. Rubin, London, pp. 3–13.
White L., Genesee F., 1996, How native is near-native? The issue of ultimate attainment in adult
second language acquisition, “Second Language Research”, 12, pp. 233–265.