Interlanguage

The term ‘Interlanguage’ was first used by Larry

Selinker(1972). While other researchers used some other
terms to portray the same observable fact.
Nemser(1971) termed it as ‘approximative system’
Corder(1971) called it as ‘transitional competence’
2 different concepts are reflected through all these terms:
◼ It is the system that a learner constructs – interlanguage(IL)

◼ It helps to form learner’s ‘built-in-syllabus’ – IL continuum

Selinker described interlanguage as
◼ Intermediate states (or intermediate grammars) of a

learner’s language as it moves toward the target L2.

◼ Creative process, driven by inner forces and
interaction, and influenced by L1 and input from the
target language.
A learner’s interlanguage is, therefore, a unique
linguistic system that draws, in part, on the learner’s
L1 but is also different from it and also from the target
language.
Difference from both L1 and L2 / TL
◼ A system that has a structurally intermediate status
between the native and target language .
◼ It is neither the system of the native language nor the
system of the target language, but instead falls between
the two.
◼ It is a system based upon the best attempt of learners to
provide order and structure to the linguistic stimuli
surrounding them.
◼ By a gradual process of trial and error and hypothesis
testing, learners slowly and tediously succeed in
establishing closer and closer approximations to the
system used by native speakers of the language.
Selinker (1972) presented three main characteristics of
interlanguage.
◼ The first one is permeability. As he stated, the
second language learners’ language system is
permeable, in the sense that rules that constitute the
learners’ knowledge at any stage are not fixed, but
are open to amendment.
◼ The second one is that interlanguage is dynamic, i.e.,
interlanguage is constantly changing. However, a
learner’s interlanguage does not jump from one stage
to the next, but rather slowly revises the interim
systems to adapt new hypotheses to the target
language system.
◼ The third one is that interlanguage is systematic. In
spite of the instability of interlanguage, it is possible
to detect the rule-based nature of the learner’s
interlanguage. The learner does not select
accidentally from his store of interlanguage rules, but
always does in predictable ways.
Apart from the above mentioned characteristics, variability
is another characteristic that can not be neglected. This
variability is evident both synchronically and
diachronically.
At any one stage in the development, the learner operates
according to the system of rules he/she has
constructed up to that point. But, sometimes, on one
occasion he/she uses one rule, while on another
he/she uses a different one. Because, each learner’s
interlanguage contains alternative rules for performing
the same function.
To understand what is meant by interlangauge we need to
briefly consider behaviourist learning theory and
mentalist views of language learning.
Behaviorist learning theory
The dominant psychology theory of the 1950s and 1960s
was well known as behaviorist learning theory.
According to this theory, language learning is like any
other kind of learning in which it involves habit
formation(Habits are formed when learners respond to
stimuli in the enviroment and subsequently have their
responses reinforced by reward so that they are
rembered).
Learners imitated models of correct language and
received positive reward if they were correct and
negative punishment if they were incorrect.
But
◼ Behaviourist accounts of L2 acquisition emphasize
only what can be directly observed and ignore what
goes on in the ‘black box’ of the learner’s mind.
◼ Learners frequently do not produce output that simply
reproduces the input.
◼ Errors demonstrates that learners are actively
involved in constructing their own ‘rules’, not just
responding to stimuli
Thus S-R-R was proved inadequate to resolve the
mystery of learning
The inadequacies of behaviourist explanations of L2
acquisition led researchers to look towards an
alternative theoretical framework. They did not have
to look very far as the 1960s witnessed a major shift
in thinking in psychology and lingusitic.
Interest in SLA emerged
◼ from language teaching (nurture) to language
learning (nature).
◼ from language acquisition as a process or habit
formation to language acquisition as a process of rule
formation.
◼ from behaviorist school to nativist / mentalist school
Then the mentalist views of L1 acquisition posited the
following:
◼ Language is a human-specific faculty

◼ Language exists as an independent faculty in the

human mind i.e. although it is part of the learner total
cognitive apparatus; it is separate from the general
cognitive mechanisms responsible for intellectual
development.
◼ The primary determinant of L1 acquisition is the child
'acquisition device‘ (LAD), which is genetically
endowed and provides the child with a set of
principles about grammar.
◼ The acquisition device atrophies with age
◼ The process of acquisition consists of hypothesis-
testing, by which, the grammar of the learner’s
mother tongue gets related to the principles of the
universal grammar.
The concept of hypothesis-testing was used to explain
how the L2 learner progressed along the interlanguage
continuum.
Through the interlanguage continuum, the learners need
to pass through 4 different stages to attain adequate
success in L2
Stages of Interlanguage Development
The stages of interlanguage development are as below:
◼ Random Errors Stage - the learner is only vaguely aware
that there is some systematic order to a particular class of
items.
i.e. John cans sing.
◼ Emergent Stage - the learner grows in consistency in
linguistic production.
i.e. John can sing, John has a good voice, True good voice.
◼ Systematic Stage - the learner is now able to
manifest more consistency in producing the second
language.
i.e. John can sing, John has a good voice, Truly a good
voice, John can sing melodious songs.
◼ Stabilization Stage - the learner has relatively few

errors and has mastered the system to the point that

fluency and intended meanings are not problematic.
The concept of interlanguage involves the following
premises about SLA:
1) The learner constructs a system of abstract linguistic
rules which underlies comprehension and production
of L2
This system of rules is viewed as a “mental grammar”
2) The learner’s grammar is permeable
That is, the grammar is open to influence from the
outside, for example through input and also to
influence from the inside, for example through
omission, overgeneralization, and transfer errors
3)The learner’s grammar is transitional
Learners change their grammar from time to time by
adding rules, deleting rules, and restructuring the
whole system which results in an interlanguage
continuum,That is, learners construct a series of
mental grammars as they gradually increase the
complexity of their L2 knowledge
4) Some researchers have claimed that the systems
that learners construct contain variable rules
That is, they argue that learners are likely to have
competing rules at any one stage of development
5) Learners employ various learning strategies to
develop their interlanguage.
The different kinds of errors learners produce reflect
different learning strategies
For example, omission errors suggest that learners are
in some way simplifying the learning task by ignoring
certain features that they aren’t ready to process
6) The learner’s grammar is likely to fossilize
That is, L2 learners stop learning at some point due to
conflict between interlanguage and L2.
Fossilization
L2 learners stop learning when their interlanguage
contains at least some rules different from those of
the target language rules.
◼ Fossilized structures may not be persistent.

◼ The causes of fossilization are both internal and

external
◼ Fossilization does not occur in L1 acquisition and is
thus unique to L2 grammars.
This concept of interlanguage offers a general account
of how L2 acquisition takes place. It incorporates
elements from mentalist theories of linguistics (the
notion of a ‘LAD’) and cognitive psychology (i.g.
‘learning strategies’).
The concept of interlanguage can be viewed as a
methaphor of how L2 acquisition takes place.It
implies that the human mind functions like a
computer. Here is the basic computational model that
has grown out of ‘interlanguage’ and that informs
much of SLA.
Computational model of L2 acquisition
through Interlanguage

Input Intake L2 knowledge Output

Explanation of computational model
Here the learner is exposed to input, which is processed in
two stages
◼ First stage: intake (strong interlanguage)

parts of the input are attended to and taken into short-term

memory.
◼ Second stage: L2 knowledge (weak interlanguage)

some of the intake is stored in long-term memory.

◼ Final stage:

here L2 knowledge is used by the learner to produce

spoken and written output (learner language).
Error Analysis
Mentalist theories rejected the idea of contrastive
analysis and replaced it with error analysis.
The goals of traditional Error Analysis were pedagogic.
But in its neo version it is used
◼ to elevate the status of errors from undesirability to

that of a guide to the language learning process.

◼ to look at the errors that the students are making to

determine the source and nature of the error.

Previously, the idea was that errors could come mainly from
some kind of interference from the learner’s L1,but, recent
studies revealed that the majority of errors did not come
from interference caused by the learner’s native language,
but were rather “interlanguage-internal” errors.
The procedure for Error Analysis is spelled out in
Corder (1974)
1. A corpus of language is selected.
2. The errors in the corpus are identified.
3. The errors are classified.
4. The errors are explained.
5. The errors are evaluated.
Error Analysis provides two kinds of information about
interlanguage.
1. The linguistic type of errors produced by L2 learners
2. The psycholinguistic type of errors produced by L2
learners
Empirical evidence for the interlanguage hypothesis
So far interlanguage continuum was considered very
theoretical but researchers wanted to know the practical
nature of it.
They wanted to know
◼ Was it to be conceived as stretching from the learner’s NL

to TL?
◼ Was it to be conceived as the gradual complexification of

IL knowledge?
To answer these queries, Corder (1978) came up with
2 of his ideas.
◼ Restructuring continuum
Here the learner is seen as gradually replacing features
of his NL as he acquires features of the TL
◼ Recreation continuum
Here the learner is seen as slowly creating the rule
system of the TL in a manner very similar to the
child’s acquisition of his FL/NL.
But, the hypothesis of the first one (Restructuring) fell
out of favor as the role of L1 fell out of favor by the
later researches’ findings. And , hence interlanguage
was viewed as a recreation continuum since then.
Longitudinal studies of interlanguage
Longitudinal studies have tried to account for the
gradual growth of competence in terms of the
strategies used by a learner at different development
points.
◼ Negation

◼ Interrogation
Cross-sectional research
The morpheme studies were carried out to investigate
the order of acquisition of a range of grammatical
functions in the speech of L2 learners.
The standard order that was reported was different from
the order of morpheme acquisition reported for L1
acquisition.
Longitudinal studies
Longitudinal studies have tried to account for the
gradual growth of competence in terms of the
strategies used by a learner at different development
points.
The longitudinal studies discussed here are those that
focus on the acquisition of particular grammatical
subsystems–negatives, interrogatives, and relative
clauses.
The common issues which concern in interlanguage is
the learner difficulty to understand language
structured of L2 because it different with their L1.
Interlanguage refers to the structured system which the
learners construct in any given stages or in the full
period in his development. So there are many steps
of development passed by the learners in
comprehending the structured form in L2.