IUTERLANGUAGE Chapter 1 INTERLANGUAGE -1, INTRODUCTION - What learners actually say has been fundamental in forming theories about learning and teaching. After all, what students produce (in writing or speaking) is the only evidence we have that our students are learning anything. In this chapter we will be exploring some of the theoretical strands which have influenced current thinking on learner language, known since the 1970s as interlanguage. This section will give you an overview of the gradual development of knowledge about interlanguage, and a feel for the complexity of the issues surrounding the analysis of interlanguage. What did theorists initially focus on’ when forming theories of why students speak the way they do when they learn learning a language? 1.2. EARLY SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION RESEARCH The foundations for the development of a theory which explains the processes that take place when an individual learns a foreign language have their empirical base in the only two pieces of visible data that linguists and psychologists have: on the one hand, the general linguistic system of a language (i.e. the L2 itself), and, on the other hand, the learner's specific language performance. (i.e. what learners say). [APPROACHES TO-LANGUAGE IN THE CLASSROOM CONTEXT ame FUNIBER $9 In the subject Second Language Acquisition we saw that theorists initially focused on the general linguistic systems of languages. This involved linguists examining the target language and contrasting it with the mother tongue, which gave rise to the term contrastive analysis (CA) The second source of data which linguists have at their disposal is that of an individual's specific language performance, in all its idiosyncratic complexity. Thus, although contrastive analysis can be considered to have a certain value as an “objective” scientific instrument in the study of two languages, its validity is a little doubtful when the aim is the learning of a foreign language, because the language used by any one individual learner is so idiosyncratic. In other words, learners who share the same mother tongue simply do not speak the L2 in exactly the same way: there are many deviant (incorrect) forms used by learners that contrastive analysis can neither predict nor explain. These deviant forms have been traditionally studied from a linguistic point of view, giving birth to the field of error analysis (EA). Before proceeding with this chapter on interlanguage you may wish to remind yourself of some of the main issues in the field by referring back to the subject Second Language Acquisition. : 1.3. INTERLANGUAGE We will now turn to a consideration of the phenomenon of interlanguage, a term which you have already come across in the subject Second Language Acquisition. As we saw in that subject, the theory of interlanguage has had a profound effect on the way we perceive not only the language which learners produce, but also the way in which the learning process itself is now viewed. We have seen that the behaviourist view of language as habit formation gave way in the 1960s to a mentalist, psycholinguistic model of language as an innate, creative, rule-governed process. This in turn led to the idea that a learner’s developing language is in fact systematic witt and “rules”. its own internal logic Early theories all refer to the same phenomenon: the existence of a “special” language, created by the individual, and standing midway between the mother tongue and the target language. This phenomenon can be represented graphically as follows: 4 [APPROACHES TO LANGUAGE IN THE CLASSROOM CONTEXTFUNIBER § INTERLANGUAGE Figure 1.4: The existence of a language between the target language and the mother tongue. REFLECTIVE TASK 1.1. Look at the diagram above (figure 1.1). What do you think the symbols LM, LX and LE stand for? To see the comments on this task you will find the “Assessment” section of the subject (virtual campus). L Jj In early models, this “special” language, which is continually evolving, was called by Nemser (1971) an approximative system. Corder (1967) concluded that the language produced by the individual who learns an L2 may be seen as @ new system with its own specific grammar. This grammar has several rules which are also present in the target language. In Corder’s view (ibid.} the individual's L2 production is in fact a “dialect” and can be represented graphically as follows: NY setof ries otta—o{ }— set of rues of Lb Figure 1.2: Languages A and B are ina dialect relationship. Font: based on Corder. (1967). However, the individual learner's language is considered to be a dialect which is highly “idiosyncratic”, as it has marked individual features that define it in opposition to the generally understood meaning of dialect. Dialect is described in the Longman Dictionary of Language Teaching & Applied Linguistics (1992: 107) as: [APPROACHES TO LANGUAGE IN THE CLASSROOM CONTEXT 5eee | FUNIBER $9 A variety of language spoken in one part of a country {regional dialect), or by people belonging to a particular social class (social dialect or SOCIOLECT), which is different in some words, grammar, and/or pronunciation from other forms of the same language. A dialect is often associated with a particular ACCENT. Sometimes a dialect gains status and becomes the STANDARD VARIETY of a country. So we might say that the description of the learner's language as a dialect was an attempt to capture the idea of two essential elements - its non-standard and its hybrid nature. Corder (1967) also used the term “transitional competence” to emphasise that this “dialect” is in a state of continuous development, The American linguist Larry Selinker (1972) coined the term interlanguage; this was to become the most common term used to describe the language system that results from language learning. Ellis suggested that the term interlanguage: .. has come to be used with different but related meanings: 1. to refer to the series of interlocking systems which characterize acquisition, 2. to refer to the system that is observed at a single stage of development (an interlanguage’), and 3. to refer to particular L1/L2 combinations (for example, L1 french/L2 english v. L1 japanese/L2 english). (1994: 710) In the next part of this chapter we will look at interlanguage (hereafter IL) in greater detail. 1.4. THE GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS OF INTERLANGUAGE Long (1980) suggested that ILs are the “psycholinguistic SL equivalents of idiolects”, where idiolect may be understood to mean: The language system of an individual as expressed by the way he or she speaks or writes within the overall system of a particular language. {Longman Dictionary of Language Teaching & Applied Linguists, 1992: 172) Long (1990: 658) 6 [APPROACHES TO LANGUAGE IN THE CLASSROOM CONTEXTFUNIBER $9 Inrentancunce ILs are also both variable and systematic. That is, they are unstable and dynamic while simultaneously exhibiting features which show that they are rule-based. This second feature, in’ Long's view, includes: The regular suppliance and nonsuppliance of both targetlike and non-targetlike features in certain linguistic contexts and in the persistence of the same errors for often quite lengthy periods. (1980: 658). Larsen-Freeman (1991) suggested that, while early SLA research was concerned with IL systematicity, synchronic variability (that is, variability at a single point in time as opposed to variability over a period of time) was so clearly a feature of IL that it had to be addressed. Apart from varying degrees of attention to form, suggested by Tarone (1979), Larsen-Freeman (ibid.: 322) offered the following list of possible explanations for IL variability: 1. Learners’ monitoring their performance (Krashen 1977}. 2. Sociolinguistic factors (Beebe 1980). 3. Adjustment of one’s speech towards one’s interlocutor (convergence) or away trom one’s interlocutor (divergence) (Beebe & Zuengler 1983). 4. Linguistic or situational context of use (Ellis 1985). 5. Discourse domains (Selinker & Douglas 1985). 6. The amount of planning time learners have (Crookes 1989). 7. A combination of factors: stage of acquisition, linguistic environment, communicative redundancy (Young 1988). 8. Learners’ use of other-regulated or self-regulated speech (Lantolf & Ahmed 1989). Larsen-Freeman (1991) concluded by suggesting that research on the extent of variability did not invalidate the notion of IL systematicity. What remained unclear sho stated “is just what kind of system it is” (ibid.: 322). In Long’s (1990: 659) view variability can be accounted for by recognising that IL development is “not linear; backsliding is common, giving rise to so-called U-shaped behavior observed in first and second language acquisition”. Development is for the most part gradual and incremental, but some sudden changes in performance suggest occasional fundamental restructuring of the underlying grammar. Larsen-Freeman (1997) suggested that the application of chaos theory to SLA offers the most setisfactory explanation for IL variability and indeed the whole SLA phenomenon. “Chaos”, she suggests, “refers simply to the period of complete APPRORCHES TO LANGUAGE IN THE CLASSROOM CONTEXT 7INTERLANGUAGE randomness that complex nonlinear systems enter into regularly and unpredictably” (ibid.: 143). She further clarified her position: ‘A major reason for the unpredictable behaviour of complex systems is their sensitive dependence on initial conditions. A slight change in initial conditions can have vast implications for future behavior. Indeed, the behavior of systems with different initial conditions, no matter how similar, diverges exponentially as time passes. A phenomenon known popularly as “the butterfly effect” exemplifies this feature and underscores the interdependence of all the components in the system. The butterfly effect is the notion that a butterfly fluttering its wings in a distant part of the world today can transform the local weather pattern next month. (ibid.: 144) By viewing interlanguage as a complex dynamic system, as Larsen-Freeman suggested, the variability/systematicity problem disappeared - chaos theory recognises the persistent instability in complex dynamic systems, so that, as she concluded, “an unstable system is not a contradiction in terms” (ibid.: 156). 1.5. PSYCHOLINGUISTIC AND SOCIOLINGUISTIC ASPECTS In this section we will look at IL from the psycholinguistic and sociolinguistic perspectives. What are the psychological and social factors involved in the construction of IL in the mind of the individual learner? 1.5.1. _ EARLY PSYCHOLINGUISTIC PERSPECTIVES ON SLA: LENNEBERG'S LATENT LANGUAGE STRUCTURE AND SELINKER’S LATENT PSYCHOLOGICAL STRUCTURE One of the main debates relating to SLA in psycholinguistics is about the extent to which language learning is different from other types of learning, and whether the difference extends from the learning of the first language to subsequent languages. Lenneberg (1967) hypothesised the existence of a latent language structure which is inherent in the human mind. This latent language structure is the biological basis of universal grammar, and it is transformed by the child into the conscious structure of a specific grammar during the child’s language learning. There are clear links with the idea of Chomsky’s (1969) LAD (Language Acquisition Device) here - see the subject Second Language Acquisition for a review of this. 8 ‘APPROACHES TO LANGUAGE IN THE CLASSROOM CONTEXTFUNIBER $9 nena The latent language structure’s main features were: is ah already formulated arrangement in the brain, © itis the biological basis of universal grammar; is transformed by the child into the structure of a particular grammar in accordance with certain maturational stages. However, Selinker (1972) argued that in SLA this latent language structure is only reactivated by a very small percentage of second language learners -which he calculated to be a mere 5%- who manage to achieve native-speaker competence. Selinker hypothesised that learners have a second structure in the brain: the latent psychological structure. This latent psychological structure differs from Lenneberg’s latent language structure in several ways: There is no genetic timetable; there is no direct counterpart to any grammatical concept such as “universal grammar”; there is no guarantee that the latent structure will be activated at all; there is no guarantee that the latent structure will be “realized” into the actual structure of any natural language (i.e. there is no guarantee that attempted learning will prove successful), and there is every possibility that an overlapping exists between this latent structure and other intellectual structures. (1972: 33) All second language learners, according to Selinker, activate the latent psychological structure. Those learners, however, who go on to attain a native-like command of the foreign language, activate the latent language structure as well as the latent psychological structure. In short, as far as language learning is concerned, Selinker considered that the human brain has two well differentiated latent structures: the latent language structure and the latent psychological structure. Those few who manage to reactivate the former will eventually achieve native-speaker competence. For those learners who fail to activate this latent language structure the probability of attaining native-like command of the second language is minimal. 1.5.2. THE INTERNAL SYLLABUS: A PATHWAY FOR LANGUAGE LEARNING Corder (1967) proposed the existence of an internal syllabus that operates in the learning of any L2. This internal syllabus was characterised in two slightly different forms. The first is what Corder called the strong version. It maintained that all [APPROACHES TO LANGUAGE IN THE CLASSROOM CONTEXT 9INTERLANGUAGE. individuals’ ILs follow approximately the same developmental path, irrespective of their mother tongue. There are two considerations: - L1=L2 (Dulay and Burt 1974), that is to say, the processes involved in learning the L1 and the L2 are the same. + There is a natural order of acquisition, common to all the individuals who learn the L2, although this order is not necessarily exactly the same as the acquisition order of the individual who learns the L1 (see the subject Second Language Acquisition for the order of acquisition of specific morphemes in both L1 and L2). The second version of the built-in syllabus is the weak version, and this one implied that the order of acquisition is determined to some extent by the L1. Although both versions leave the question of exactly what processes are involved in such a hypothesis open, it seems clear that the human brain contains a sequential organiser for receiving language data which acts independently of the external learning programme which may be imposed on the individual in formal language learning contexts. In other words, the structural syllabus that you as a teacher may decide to follow with your learners will not necessarily have any effect on your learners’ acquisition. If their IL has not developed to the stage where it is’ ready’ to acquire, for example, the past simple, it simply will not do so. Instruction has no effect on the order of acquisition. Littlewood (1984) summarised this point in this way: The idea of the internal syllabus is supported by the fact that learners make similar kinds of errors, irrespective of what course of instruction they have followed or whether they have received formal instruction at all. (1984: 35) That said, Ellis (1993: 92) suggested that while the structural syllabus may be unrealistic in terms of what it expects students to produce, it may well serve as a means of “raising students’ consciousness about grammar” and thus enable them to notice the gap between the current state of their own IL and the input. This is an aspect of IL development which will be dealt with more fully in the next chapter when we consider the role of consciousness in SLA. 1.5.3. SOCIOLINGUISTIC PERSPECTIVES ON INTERLANGUAGE: TARONE’S STYLISTIC CONTINUUM A social perspective on IL was offered by Elaine Tarone. In the paper Interlanguage as chameleon, Tarone (1978) identified IL with natural language because of its versatility in different situations. Tarone based her theory on the principle established by Labov 10 [APPROACHES TO LANGUAGE IN 71FUNIBER $5 Inrenuancuace (1970) of studying language in its social context; she proposed that IL consists of different styles and its linguistic and phonological characteristics change according to the social context. Thus IL, according to Tarone, involved a stylistic continuum, with, at one end of the continuum, the careful style, and at the other end, the vernacular style. The style used by the speaker varies according to the attention paid to speech, and the speaker's IL changes depending on this factor. The less attention paid to speech - as normally happens in informal situations - the less learners are conscious of linguistic forms, and the more likely they are to make spontaneous choices in terms of linguistic forms. In this instance they are using the vernacular style. On the contrary, the more attention paid to speech, as would be the case in a more formal setup, the more consciously learners attend to linguistic forms, and use the careful style. Tarone’s theory offered an explanation as to why learner language may be so variable and it related language use to language learning. However, it was not without its problems. Research showed that learners are not always less accurate when using the vernacular style or more accurate when using the careful style. Also, style shifting among students does not correspond to specific social contexts, as is the case with native speakers, but rather seems to be dependent on whether or not the learner has time to plan the output. Thus style shifting could be said to be psycholinguistically motivated, rather than socially motivated, as Tarone had originally claimed. However, whether psycho- or sociolinguistically motivated, the existence of a variety of styles in a learner's IL does undermined the idea of IL as a static monolith at any given moment in time. 1.5.4. SCHUMANN’S ACCULTURATION MODEL Ellis (1997) suggests that Schumann's acculturation model is similar to Tarone’s stylistic continuum in that both perspectives share a concern with social factors. As we saw in the subject Second Language Acquisition the central idea in this model is “distance”, which can be both social and psychological. Schumann elaborates on two instances of social distance as follows: One of the bad situations... would be where the TL {target language) group views the 2LL (second language learner) as dominant and the 2LL group views itself in the same way; where both groups desire preservation and high enclosure for the 2LL group; where the 2LL group is both cohesive and large; where the two cultures are not congruent; where the two groups hold negative attitudes toward each other, and where the 2LL group intends to remain in the APBROACHES TO LANGUAGE IN THE CLASSROOM CONTEXT aITERLANGUAGE TL area for only a short time. This type of situation is likely to develop for Americans living in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. (1978: 80-81) The second bad situation... has all the characteristics of the first except that in this case the 2LL group would consider itself subordinate and would be considered subordinate by the TL group. This has been the traditional situation of Navajo Indians living in the Southwest, and of American Indians in general. Psychological distance could thus be seen to be a consequence of social distance although clearly all the factors mentioned by Schumann would not be necessary for a learner to feel psychological distance. Ellis (1997) suggests that there are two problems with Schumann‘s model - both social and psychological distance are assumed to be stable and impervious to change. Learners, he argues, are “not just subject to social conditions but can also become the subject of them” (ibid.: 41). As such, social and psychological distance may be variables which can be, at least in certain circumstances, affected by the individual learner. 1.5.5. CREATIVE CONSTRUCTION AND RESTRUCTURING ‘As we saw earlier in this chapter, IL is variable and subject to change. This dynamic aspect of IL has been seen alternatively as a process of creation and as a process of restructuring Dulay, Burt and Krashen proposed a theory of creative construction to account for SLA, which they defined as: The subconscious process by which language learners gradually organize the language they hear, according to the rules they construct to understand and generate sentences. (1982:276) Dulay and Burt (1974) characterised several of the errors they identified in learners’ ‘output as being caused by this process. That is, learners seemed to make up rules about the L2 through a process of creative construction which could not be traced to L1 interforonce. Thus creative construction is based on the principle that learners of foreign languages establish the rules of their IL using natural mental processes such as overgeneralization, together with processes similar to those used in the acquisition of the mother tongue, —_—_————————————————— 2 [APPROACHES TO LANGUAGE IN THE CLASSAOOM CONTEXTInTERLANGUAGE ignoring the rules of the L2 and producing new forms and structures that are not present in the L2. According to the theory of restructuring (see Ellis 1994, 1997) the acquisition of new knowledge directly influences the structure of knowledge which has already been acquired, and vice versa. Thus a learner will reorganise his/her IL when he/she receives new evidence about the target language. In other words, restructuring of the IL will take place. A restructuring continuum (Corder 1978) was proposed, whereby the learner gradually replaces L1 rules with L2 rules, and thus moves along a continuum from the L1 closer and closer to target language norms. However, this idea of a smooth progression of IL development along an IL continuum. was problematic in that it did not account for the frequent regression which a learner's IL may go through. A learner may for example learn the word went as the past tense of go. Later, however, that same learner, when she comes across the morpheme -ed as used for regular past simple, may produce the form goed. Later still, went may be used correctly again. Thus it would seem that acquisition follows a U-shaped course of development, which is not accounted for by the idea of an IL continuum. It is precisely this feature of interlanguage which, as we saw earlier, Larsen-Freeman (1997) used chaos theory to account for. Ellis (1994) reported Corder’s proposal (1978) that in developing his/her IL, the individual used both recreation and restructuring, providing a synthesis between these two positions. This means that: Learners create unique rules not to be found in either the L1 or the TL (target language) and then gradually complexify these rules in the direction of those in the TL, particularly in the case of syntax learnt in informal environments. They also make use of their L1, gradually restructuring it es they discover how it differs from the TL, a process that Corder suggests is more prevalent in the case of phonology learnt in formal environments... Thus, both universal principles and the learner's L1 are involved in the process of acquiring an L2. (Ellis 1994:115) 1.6. LINGUISTIC PROCESSES IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF INTERLANGUAGE So far we have focused on some of the general characteristics of IL and on some of the ideas about the psychological and social factors operating in the construction of IL. In this section we will look more closely at some of the accounts of linguistic processes involved in the construction of IL. [APPROACHES TO LANGUAGE IN THE CLASSROOM CONTEXT 13aaa FUNIBER $9 Selinker saw the development of IL as resting on five central processes (in Ellis 1994:351): 1. Language transfer: some, but certainly not all, items, rules and subsystems of a learner's IL may be transferred from the first language. 2. Overgeneralization of target language structures: some interlanguage elements are the result of a “clear overgeneralization” of target language rules and semantic features. 3. Transfer of training: some IL elements may derive from the way in which learners are taught. 4. Strategies used in second language learning: Selinker defines a strategy as “an identifiable approach by the learner to the material to be learned” (1972:37). 5. Strategies used in second language communication: These are “an identifiable approach by the learner to communication with native speakers of the TL” {ibid:37). We will now look at each of these processes in turn. 1.6.1. THE NATURE OF TRANSFER Language transfer has been described as the carrying over of features of one language to another. Richards (1974) defined transfer as “the use of elements from one language while speaking another”. What linguistic elements are transferred depends on the individual's implicit belief about what is transferable or not from his/her first language. Thus the distance between L1 and L2 in terms of linguistic features is considered to be a decisive factor (Jordens 1980), and language transfer will be more frequent when the L1 and the L2 are similar. However, it is important to note that language transfer does not only refer to transfer from the mother tongue. The knowledge of another language (or languages) increases the possibilities of language transfer from these second languages. In fact, in these cases, transfer often takes place from the already present L2 interlanguages, while mother tongue interference may be minimal. For example, a spanish learner of english as an L2, who already knows some french as an L2, may be more likely to transfer from french into english than from his/her mother tongue (spanish) 14 [APPROACHES TO LANGUAGE IN THE CLASSROOM CONTEXTFUNIBER § InteRLawouace Thus it would appear that the relationship between interlanguages, whatever their nature, is more direct than the relationship between an L1 and an interlanguage, Indeed it sometimes seems as if sophisticated adult learners unconsciously classify their experience of languages and as a strategy prefer the hypothesis that @ new second language is more likely to resemble a known second language than their native tongue. (Corder 1983:74) 1.6.2. THE EFFECTS OF TRANSFER ‘The effects of language transfer can be of two sorts: + Positive transfer: this is the kind of transfer that facilitates learning and happens when there is a coincidence of elements between the L1 and the L2. - Negative transfer (interference): this is the kind of language transfer that refers to the use of a structure or element of the L1 that it is not appropriate in the L2, thereby producing an error. One of the problems with the concept of transfer is that some researchers, when researching learner output, do not take into account the possibility of positive transfer, and instead identify language transfer solely with its negative aspects. Clearly, for any consideration of transfer to be complete, we need to take into account transfer that is both negative and positive. One could argue, from a pedagogical point of view, that if transfer (both positive and negative) is a learning strategy thet all learners make use of, then it might be useful for ‘teachers to draw their students’ attention to similarities and differences between the L2 and their mother tongue, so as to consciously encourage positive transfer and to warn students of areas of possible negative transfer. Translation activities have become a feature of newer coursebooks as learners are encouraged to become aware of similarities and differences between their L1 and english (e.g. the language in use series). REFLECTIVE TASK 1.2. Think of three grammatical structures that are almost the same in spanish and english, and that you could encourage your students to use positive transfer with. [APPROACHES TO LANGUAGE IN THE CLASSROOM CONTEXT 15.INTERLANGUAGE Also, think of three grammatical structures that are different in spanish and english, but which learners often transfer, and that you could make your students aware of, so as to hopefully avoid this negative transfer. To see the comments on this task you will find the “Assessment” section of the subject (virtual campus). 1.6.3. “TRANSFER AND LANGUAGE UNIVERSALS In the subject Second Language Acquisition we saw that we could not always predict what elements of their L1 learners would transfer to their L2 learning. Cognitive accounts of L2 learning, on the other hand, have identified that one of the main constraints that governs transfer from the L1 to the L2 is that of learners’ perceptions of what is transferable and what is not. Kellerman (1984), for example, stated that learners have definite perceptions about what they can and what they cannot transfer from their L1: learners seem to treat some features of their L1 as potentially transferable, and others as potentially non- transferable. Ellis explains this tendency as follows: Broadly speaking...learnors have a sense of what features in their L1 are in some way basic. They are more prepared to risk transferring such features than they are those they perceive to be unique to their own language. Kellerman found that advanced dutch learners of english had clear perceptions about which meanings of “breken” (“break”) were basic in their L1 and which were unique. He found that they were prepared to translate a sentence like: Hij brak zijn been. (He broke his leg.) directly into english, using “broke” for “brak” but were not prepared to give a direct translation of a sentence like: Het ondergrondse verset werd gebroken. (The underground resistance was broken.) even though this was, in fact, possible. In other words, the learners transferred @ basic meaning of “breken” but resisted transferring a meaning they perceived as unique. (Ellis 1997:53) ss 16 [APPROACHES TO LANGUAGE IN THE CLASSROOM CONTEXT FUNIBER £9FUNIBER $9 eboney Thus it has been proposed that learners will be more likely to transfer “basic” structures or meanings (known as unmarked structures) from their L1 then more unique or unusual (marked) structures. That is, universal typologies will have an effect on transfer (see the subject Second Language Acquisition for a review of this). Again, Ellis provides a clear example, this time considering the transfer of certain features of pronunciation: English contrasts the sounds /t/ and /d/ word initially (tin/din), word medially (betting/bedding), and word finally {wet/wed). German, however, only contrasts these two sounds word initially and word medially. Typologically, the word initial contrast is unmarked and the word final contrast marked. It can be predicted, then, that english learners will have no difficulty learning that the word final contrast does not exist in German, but that German learners will experience considerable difficulty in learning to make the final contrast in english. This is what has been found to occur. (1997:70-1) To summarise: language universals seem to play a fundamental role in transfer. Thus in considering IL development we need to bear in mind not only the possible influences of the mother tongue, and the system of the foreign language itself, but also the role of language universals. 1.6.4. — OVERGENERALIZATION Generalization may be considered a fundamental process in the construction of an IL. However, overgeneralization also occurs and this is characterised by the extensive use of a grammatical form of the L2 in situations where another rule applies. Ellis defines The oversuppliance of an interlanguage feature in contexts in which it does not occur in target-language use (e.g.'He ated ice-cream’). Overgeneralizations result in errors. (1997:142) Thus through the process of overgeneralization, both the interlanguage system and those of the L2 are combined so, theoretically, the kind of erroneous structures that result are independent of the individual’s mother tongue. Richards (1974) considered that these errors were common to speakers of different languages when they developed hypotheses about the structure of the second/foreign language. Alll learners of the same L2, irrespective of their mother tongue, would produce the same kinds of errors; thus overgeneralization has a universal character. [APPROACHES TO LANGUAGE IN THE CLASSROOM CONTEXT 17This process of overgeneralization was compared to the same sort of process that operates for children learning their mother tongue (Littlewood 1984). According to Ervin-Tripp (1974): Possibly the morphological and syntactic simplifications of second language learners correspond to some simplification common among children (i.e. mother tongue speakers) learning the same tongue. The two main features of overgeneralization are firstly, the tendency to use regular forms where possible (as illustrated in Ellis “He ated ice-cream” example above), and secondly, to simplify elements and structures. These processes are known as regularisation and simplification, respectively. These processes are not exclusive to language learning as they also apply to other areas of knowledge in our tendency to classify and distribute real world objects into categories. Richards (1971) suggested that in the language process, simplification (and reduction) are caused by the individual's attempt to reduce the complexity of the language system. A few examples will shed some light on this process: = no understand, : - he champion, - isman. (Butterworth and Hatch 1978) Here we can see clearly that the learner is making life easier for himself by, in the first example, leaving out the pronoun “!” and the auxiliary “don’t”; in the second example the verb “to be”, is ignored, and finally the pronoun “he”, plus the article “a” are skipped, Note how the meaning of each of these messages remains clear, despite the grammaticel reduction. Jain (1974) distinguished between two fundamental types of overgeneralization which depend on the L1’s degree of proximity to the L2: = Overgeneralizations that are produced in a “creative” way cause more errors. - Overgeneralizations that are based on the L2 produce fewer errors. According to Jain (ibid.) errors will help the teacher to determine which areas of the L2 need more attention and what kind of attention is needed 18 [APPROACHES TO LANGUAGE IN THE CLASSROOM CONTEXTFUNIBER $9 terexuncuce 1.6.5. TRANSFER OF TRAINING The way in which a foreign language is taught appears to play a fundamental role in the individual's IL development. It has been proposed, as we will see below, that some erroneous IL features may be caused by the way in which learners are taught. Richards (1971) suggested that teachers may overemphasise, for example, the form of the present continuous which, in turn, may lead to individuals extending its use to situations where the present simple is required. A further aspect, also underlined by Richards (ibid.), is that certain teaching techniques can actually encourage erroneous uses of different forms, as in this transformation drill: Teacher Instruction Student “he walks quickly” change it to present continuous “he is walks quickly” Here the teacher is asking a student to transform a sentence from the present simple to the present continuous. Richards suggests that this standard kind of transformation exercise can cause errors of overgeneralization. As well as the need to avoid excessive use of certain structures and transformation exercises, it is also important for the teacher to be aware of the order in which language is presented to students. For example, many courses focus on the present simple before the present continuous, whereas morpheme studies have shown that both native speakers and L2 learners acquire the present simple after the present continuous (see the subject Second Language Acquisition). Given that the introduction of new language in the classroom does not always follow the natural order of acquisition many examples of negative transfer may be traced to these two sources - either through ignoring the natural order of acquisition or reinforcing overgeneralizati through task types. Thus transfer of training may be seen as an important aspect of second language acquisition and IL development. Furthermore, it can be considered one of the few elements that can be controlled by teachers. Courses could be designed to offer more suitable input for students in terms not only of pedagogical activity types, but also in terms of language item sequencing. APPROACHES TO LANGUAGE IN THE CLASSROOM CONTEXT 19rnrentancuace FUNIBER $9 1.6.6. LEARNING STRATEGIES AND COMMUNICATION STRATEGIES IL theory led the way for research into what learners do to facilitate their own language learning. This was very significant because it was the first attempt to take into account the learners’ conscious attempts to control their own learning (and hence to move on from the dominant ‘subconscious’ accounts of SLA). Research centred around learning strategies. Richards, Platt and Weber (1986:274) describe strategies used in the construction of IL as: Procedures used in learning, thinking etc. which serve as a way of reaching a goal. In language learning, learning strategies and communication strategies are those conscious or unconscious processes which language learners make use of in learning and using a language. In this section we will look at learning strategies and communica separately. @ strategies 1.6.7. LEARNING STRATEGIES Learning strategies, according to Ellis (1997:76-7), are “the particular approaches or techniques that learners employ to try to learn an L2”. He refers to three main types of learning strategy in a summary of the main learning strategies identified in the literature: 1. Cognitive strategies are those involved in the analysis, synthesis, or transformation of learning materials. An example is “recombination”, which involves constructing a meaningful sentence by recombining known elements of the L2 in a new way. 2, Metacognitive strategies are those involved in planning, monitoring, and evaluating learning. An example is “selective attention”, where the learner makes a conscious decision to attend to particular aspects of the input. 3. Social/affective strategies concern the ways in which learners choose to interact with other speakers. An example is “questioning for clarification” (i.e. asking for repetition, a paraphrase, or an example). One of the most elusive questions in SLA research is the relationship between the learning processes of the L1 and the L2, and the degree of similarity or difference between them. It has, for example, been argued that the learning strategies used for the L2 are the same as the ones employed for the L1. Richards, Platt and Weber (1986), in their definition of the term, did not distinguish between L1 and L2 learning strategies. Specific processes such as overgeneralization or simplification seem to operate in both L1 and L2, but language transfer, as Corder (1983) pointed out, only occurs in L2 20 [APPROACHES TO LANGUAGE IN THE CLASSROOM CORTEKTFUNIBER $9 cea learning. Clearly there are certain strategies in the learning process that are common to both the L1 and L2 - however, in the case of L2 learning the individual also has at his/ her disposal an L1 which offers the possibility of using transfer as a learning strategy. Visnja Pavidic Takaé (2008) summarises both the importance, and the limitations of research into learning strategies: The significance of interlanguage theory lies in the fact that it is the first attempt to take into account the possibility of learner conscious attempts to control their learning. It was this view that initiated an expansion of research into psychological processes in interlanguage development whose aim was to determine what learners do in order to help facilitate their own learning, i.e. which learning strategies they employ (Griffiths & Parr, 2001). It seems, however, that the research of Selinker's learning strategies, with the exception of transfer, has not been take up by other researchers. 1.6.8. | COMMUNICATION STRATEGIES Communication strategies have been defined in a number of different ways: - A systematic technique employed by a speaker to express his meaning when faced with some difficulty (Corder 1978). - A mutual attempt of two interlocutors to agree on a meaning in situations when requisite meaning structures are not shared (Tarone 1980). - Potentially conscious plans for solving what an individual presents to itself as a problem in reaching a particular communicative goal (Faerch and Kasper 1986). - Techniques of coping with difficulties in communicating in an imperfectly known second language (Stern 1983: 411). As Bialystok (1990) pointed out, these definitions, although different in detail, all have three features in common: those of problematicity, consciousness, and intentionality. aspects that have been studied in some depth within the field. It is also important to note that strategies are not used in @ haphazard way: their use depends, to a great extent, both on the interlocutor’s and on the learner's knowledge of the L2. There have been many attempts to classify communication strategies from different points of view. The taxonomy included here is the one developed by Tarone (1980), which, as Bialystok (1990) noted: [APPROACHES TO LANGUAGE IN THE CLASSROOM CONTEXT 21Has proven robust and complete -subsequent taxonomies can invariably be traced to her original categories, and data collected by different researchers tor different purposes has confirmed the logic and utility of her distinctions, Tarone’s taxonomy is as follows: 1. Avoidance: avoidance of certain linguistic features which learners consider difficult. + Topic avoidanc linguistic features. avoidance of the topic rather than avoidance of specific - Message abandonment: giving up trying to communicate a message in the face of difficulty. 2. Paraphrase: repeating what has just been said using other words. + Approximation: trying to paraphrase in order to “approximate” (get a closer understanding of) what an interlocutor says. - Word coinage: inventing words, either based on the L1 or the L2 in order to get a meaning across. - Circumlocution: talking around a subject, or describing something when the exact word for the concept is not known, in order to make oneself understood. 3. Conscious transfer: consciously transferring a feature of L1 or another L2 to the TL. - Literal translation: literal translation L1 into the L2. - Language switch: resorting to the mother tongue or another L2. 4. Appeal for assistance: asking the interlocutor for help. 5. Mime: the use of gesture to illustrate what is being said. 1.7. THE PROCESS OF FOSSILIZATION IN INTERLANGUAGE A process that most second language learners seem to be susceptible to is that of fossilization (Selinker 1972). We came across this concept briefly in the subject Second Language Acquisition. Fossilization, you will remember, refers to the process whereby a learner's IL development stops some way short of target language norms. As Zhao 22 APPROACHES TO LANGUAGE IN THE CLASSROOM CONTEXTINTERLANGUAGE. BER $9 FUNI Hong Han (2008) notes, this happens even when the conditions for language learning ‘seem right: Thus, a fundamental concern in L2 research has been that learners typically stop short of targetlike attainment, i.e., the monolingual native speaker's competence, in some or ail linguistic domains, even in environments where input seems abundant, motivation appears strong, and opportunity for communicative practice is plentiful. Ellis (ibid.) also refers to the fact that some learners may well succeed in reaching target-language norms in some types of discourse (for example, in planned discourse) while falling short of target-language norms in other types of discourse (for example, in unplanned, spontaneous discourse). In this section on fossilization, we will consider two issues: the causes of fossilization, and the implications of fossilization for classroom practice. 1.7.1. CAUSES OF FOSSILIZATION Ellis (1994), suggested there is no single cause for fossilization and he summarised the literature on fossilization under two headings: internal and external factors. Internal factors he identified as (i) age and (ii) the lack of desire to acculturate. Ellis, (ibid.: 354) describes these factors as follows: i, when learners reach a critical age their brains lose plasticity, with the result that certain linguistic features cannot be mastered, and ‘i, a8 a result of various social and psychological factors, learners make no efforts to adopt TL cultural norms -the outcome of which is that It falls short of target language norms. External factors were identified as: i. communicative pressure, ii, lack of learning opportunity, iii, the nature of feedback on learner's use of L2. The first of these refers to what Ellis called the “persistent pressure to communicate ideas that require the use of language that exceeds the learner's linguistic competence” (ibid.). This is felt to produce errors which become fixed in the learner's IL. The second APPROACHES TO LANGUAGE IN THE CLASSROOM CONTEXT 23INTERLANGUAGE. factor refers to lack of opportunity for receiving input and producing output, while the third factor is described as follows: Positive cognitive feedback (signalling “I understand you") results in fossilization; negative feedback (signalling “I don’t understand you) helps avoid fossilization. (ibid.) 1.7.2. CLASSROOM IMPLICATIONS AND FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS IN RESEARCH If fossilization is understood in Selinker’s (1972) sense then, once it occurs, it becomes a permanent feature of IL although the fossilized feature may temporarily disappear. This view stated. Fossilizable linguistic phenomena are linguistic items, rules and subsystems which speakers of a particular NL will tend to keep in their IL relative to a particular TL, no matter what the age of the learner or amount of explanation and instruction he receives in the TL. Other views of fossilization have been proposed which can accommodate change, such as might be possible. in an immersion programme which is supplemented with contact with native speakers of the TL. However, under Selinker’s (1972} view, the business of the teacher would be to prevent fossilization occurring in the first place, as any feature of IL which changed as result of instruction would not be categorised as fossilized. The external factors listed by Ellis (1994) and reproduced above are thus extremely important for teachers as all three represent variables which teachers have the power to affect. These would suggest that a pedagogy which places inappropriate communicative demands on students and does not incorporate a focus on form could contribute to fossilization. 1.8. CORPUS-BASED LINGUISTICS CHALLENGES TO INTERLANGUAGE RESEARCH As the view has gained ground that conscious attention to form through noticing, reconstruction etc., contributes to SLA, and indeed a lack of opportunities to do so might be contributing to fossilization, course books have reflected this in their inclusion of this type of activity. We will deal with this in much greater depth in the next section 24 [APPROACHES TO LANGUAGE IN THE CLASSROOM CONTEXTTNTERLANGUAGE Before we move to the detail of cognitive accounts of language learning, we need to gain perspective on the current changes across all the research areas of SLA. We have touched on some of the issues arising from linguistic, sociolinguistic and psycholinguistic accounts of interlanguage and its role in SLA, and seen the historical significance of interlanguage theories and research. However, these fields are changing rapidly. New work in sociolinguistics challenges the view of language that underlies interlanguage research. Sociolinguistic research facilitated by computer analysis of language corpus has led to advances in usage-based linguistic theory, (that is; linguistic theory that refers to actual language use as opposed to theory that refers only to an idealized language structure represented by grammar rules). This challenges the concept of an interlanguage as something that can be described with reference to an idealized “correct” underlying analytical system, and the very notion of an interlanguage as we are discussing it in this chapter. Language is seen instead as a highly complex emergent system, which can be learnt through use alone, but it is argued, its developing complexity cannot be captured through the existence or not in output of examples of idealized structures. This is an important area for the development of the field, and you might like to follow this up through this article by Thornbury, S. (2007), who gives a very clear overview of the significance of some new theories about Language as an Emerging system. Thornbury, S. (1997) led the move towards language teachers knowing more about language in use and how it works in order to inform their pedagogical practice. Thornbury, S. and Slade, D. (2006) offer language teachers a bridge between the description of spoken language in use and its implications for classroom practice, in nto Pedagogy. Chapter 1 of this source (Suggestions for further reading) gives a feel of the complexity of spoken conversation, and illustrates that as we are better able to describe language in use, we are better able to see the distance between it and idealized models of language. Also pertinent to this discussion of new views about language acquisition is the growing realization that learners increasingly live in multilingual situations. Tucker, R. (1998: Chapter 1) gives an overview of the implications of a world in which multilingualism is becoming the norm, both in personal spheres of language and educational spheres. APPROACHES TO LANGUAGE IN THE CLASSROOM CONTEXT 25ee ae FUNIBER $9 1.9. CONCLUSION In this chapter we have looked at the phenomenon of interlanguage, in particular with regard to positive and negative L1 transfer, and the concept of fossilization. IL theory led the way for research into learning strategies, and hence led the way forward to cognitive accounts of language learning, and the recognition of the importance of conscious learning in second language learning. The gradual acceptance of cognitive learning perspectives on second language acquisition have shifted the emphasis from earlier “subconscious” accounts to accounts which place the learner, and the learners’ attempts to control their own learning at the centre of second language development. The final task for this chapter is included to help you digest this information and to prepare you for the next chapter where we will consider the role of consciousness in SLA and look at some practical suggestions for the classroom. 1.10, SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER READING. [1] Ellis, R. (1997): ‘Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Chapters 3 - 7. [2] _ Ellis, R. (2008): The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxtord: Oxford University Press. Chapters 3 & 4. [3] Faerch, C. & Kasper, G. (eds.) (1983): Strategies in Interlanguage Communication. New York: Longman. [41 Oxford, R. (2011) Teaching and Researching: Language Learning Strategies. Longman. [5] Thornbury, S. (1997): About Language. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press. [6] Thornbury, S. and Slade, D. (2006): Conversation: From Description to Pedagogy. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press Chapter 1 pp. 1-39. 17] Tucker, R. (1998) A Global Perspective on Multilingualism and Multilingual Education, in J. Cenoz and F. Genesee (1998) Beyond Bilingualism. Clevedon. Multilingual Matters Chapter 1 [8] Vignja Pavidic Taka’, (2008) Vocabulary Learning Strategies and Foreign Language Acquisition. Multilingual Matters. [9] ZhaoHong Han (2009) Interlanguage and Fossilization: Towards an Analytic Model, in Contemporary Applied Linguistics: Language Teaching and Learning, ed. by Li Wei and Vivian Cook. Continuum, (2009). 26 [APPROACHES TO LANGUAGE IN THE CLASSROOM CONTEXT