Interlanguage - Tarone (2018) Handout 2

10.1002/9781405198431.wbeal0561.pub2, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781405198431.wbeal0561.pub2 by TESTREGPROV3, Wiley Online Library on [10/01/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.
com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Interlanguage
ELAINE TARONE
Interlanguage (IL) refers to the linguistic system of learner language produced by adults
when they attempt meaningful communication using a language they are in the process
of learning. The construct of interlanguage was proposed by Larry Selinker in 1972 and
stimulated the first research studies in the new field of second language acquisition (SLA).
It continues, in modified form, to provide a useful general framework for research in that
field. Here we will summarize the original formulation of the hypothesis in 1972, and then
review subsequent modifications and expansions of the hypothesis.
The most fundamental claim of the interlanguage hypothesis is that the language pro-
duced by the adult learner when he or she attempts meaningful communication in a foreign
language is systematic at every level: phonology, morphology, syntax, semantics, and prag-
matics. The interlanguage system is fundamentally autonomous and patterned. It is not a
random hodgepodge collection of unsystematic errors but, clearly, neither is it a native lan-
guage (NL) or target language (TL); it is a separate transitional linguistic system that can
be described in terms of evolving linguistic patterns and rules, and explained in terms of
specific cognitive and sociolinguistic processes that shape it.
Another important claim is that the processes of interlanguage acquisition and use
are typically unconscious and not open to introspective analysis by the learner. Indeed,
the learner is typically not aware of the linguistic characteristics of the language he or she is
unconsciously using, often perceiving the linguistic forms being used in IL to be “the same”
as forms in both NL and TL. If learners are asked about interlanguage rules that they use
in their own unrehearsed, meaningful communication, they will not be able to give an
accurate account of those rules. Rather they may describe TL rules they have consciously
learned in the classroom, but these are not the interlanguage rules they actually use when
focused on meaning.
One of Selinker’s most controversial claims is that interlanguage always “fossilizes”—it
stops developing at some point before it becomes identical with the target language sys-
tem. In other words, adult second language learners never reach their goal—they can never
produce the target language as accurately as someone who acquired it natively.
Origins of the Concept of Interlanguage
The general idea that the language of second language learners is an autonomous linguistic
system, distinct from both NL and TL, was developed at about the same time by three schol-
ars (see Selinker, 1992, for a detailed account). Nemser (1971) referred to learner language
as an “approximative system,” and Corder (1967, 1981) called it “transitional competence.”
Eventually, the term “interlanguage” (Selinker, 1972) was the one that caught on. The con-
struct was developed in reaction to generally accepted claims by contrastive analysts such
as Lado (1957) that the second language learner’s language was shaped entirely and only by
the transfer of linguistic patterns from the native language. Lado had argued that because
of learners’ reliance on their NL rules, a good contrastive analysis of the NL and the TL
The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics. Edited by Carol A. Chapelle.
© 2018 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2018 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
DOI: 10.1002/9781405198431.wbeal0561.pub2
10.1002/9781405198431.wbeal0561.pub2, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781405198431.wbeal0561.pub2 by TESTREGPROV3, Wiley Online Library on [10/01/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
2 INTERLANGUAGE
could accurately predict all the difficulties that learners would encounter in trying to learn
the TL. However, there was little if any empirical evidence to support this claim. In the late
1950s and the 1960s, there were virtually no systematic attempts to observe learner language
and document the way in which learner language developed, and no data were reported
which could independently and objectively verify the strong claims of the contrastive anal-
ysis hypothesis that language transfer was the sole process shaping learner language.
S. P. Corder (1967) was the first to publish the alternative hypothesis that second language
learners may not begin with their system of NL rules and gradually modify those in the
direction of the TL. Rather, he argued, second language learners are more like first language
learners, beginning with an essential, simple, probably universal grammar. In Corder’s
view, second language learners had a “built-in syllabus”—different from the teacher’s
syllabus—which could guide them in the systematic development of their own linguistic
system, or “transitional competence.” Calling for the empirical study of learners’ errors,
Corder hypothesized that researchers would find evidence not of the wholesale transfer
of NL rules but of the idiosyncratic linguistic system that learners were building. Errors
would become a source of valuable data for research into the nature of the second language
learner’s “built-in syllabus.”
During a 1968/9 Fulbright stay at Edinburgh University where he worked with Corder
and other scholars, Larry Selinker developed the construct of “interlanguage” to flesh out
the view of learner language as an autonomous linguistic system, and not just a collection of
errors. His paper “Interlanguage” (Selinker, 1972) was intended to stimulate research into
the structure and development of the linguistic system underlying the language sponta-
neously produced by adult second language learners.
Defining Interlanguage
“Interlanguage” was defined by Selinker (1972) as the separate linguistic system evidenced
when adult second language learners spontaneously express meaning using a language
they are in the process of learning. The linguistic system of interlanguage encompasses not
just phonology, morphology, and syntax, but also lexis, pragmatics, and discourse. Interlan-
guage (IL) differs systematically from both the learner’s native language (NL) and the target
language (TL) being learned. The IL is not just a relexification of the NL morphosyntactic
system—NL rules with TL vocabulary; in other words, NL transfer is not the only process
that shapes IL. Just as clearly, what the learner is producing is not the TL morphosyntactic
system—the IL has a distinctive and systematic set of rules that differs in describable ways
from the TL rule system.
Central to the notion of interlanguage is fossilization—the tendency of the learner’s inter-
language to stop developing short of the learner’s goal. Fossilization was initially claimed
to occur only when adults acquire a second language after puberty. Children acquiring
second languages were thought to have the ability to reengage their innate capacity for
language-specific acquisition (or universal grammar, UG) and thus avoid fossilization.
Selinker felt that fossilization results because adults acquiring second languages use more
general cognitive processes, which he referred to as “latent psychological structure,” rather
than an innate language-specific UG, which he referred to as “latent language structure”
(Lenneberg, 1967). He identified five cognitive processes that constitute the latent psycho-
logical structure and shape interlanguage linguistic systems: (a) native language transfer,
(b) overgeneralization of target language rules, (c) transfer of training, (d) strategies of com-
munication, and (e) strategies of learning.
Native language transfer helps shape interlanguage rules. While it is not the only cognitive
process involved (as Lado claimed), there is ample research evidence that it does influence
INTERLANGUAGE 3
the development of interlanguage rules. Selinker (1972, 1992, following Weinreich, 1968,
p. 7) suggests that the cognitive process underlying transfer is interlingual identifications: the
perception of certain units as the same in NL, IL, and TL. So, for example, learners may per-
ceive NL table as exactly the same as TL mesa, and develop an interlanguage in which mesa
can be used in expressions like “table of contents” or “table the motion.” Selinker followed
Weinreich in pointing out an interesting paradox in second language acquisition: in tra-
ditional structural linguistics, units are defined in relation to the linguistic system in which
they occur, and have no meaning outside that system. However, in making interlingual iden-
tifications, second language learners perceive a linguistic unit as the same in meaning across
three systems. How do they do this? And what sorts of units are used in this way: phonemes,
allophones, or syllables, for example? Selinker asks whether traditional linguistic frame-
works, based as they are on assumptions of monolingualism, can handle interlanguage data
in which interlingual identifications across three linguistic systems play a central role.
A second cognitive process is overgeneralization of target language rules, a process
widely observed in child language acquisition and sometimes called a developmental
process. The learner shows evidence of having mastered a general rule, but does not yet
know all the exceptions to that rule. So, for example, the learner may use the past tense
marker -ed for all verbs, regular and irregular alike: walked, wanted, hugged, laughed, *drinked,
*hitted, *goed. The overgeneralization error is clear evidence of progress, in that it shows that
the learner has learned the general language rule. The next step is to learn the exceptions.
To the extent that second language learners make overgeneralization errors, one might
argue that they are using the same process as that employed by first language learners.
Many of the early stages of development in SLA, such as in the acquisition of English
questions, can involve the cognitive process of overgeneralization; for example, learners
overgeneralize subject–verb–object statement word order, to produce stage 3 questions.
Transfer of training occurs when the second language learner applies rules learned from
instructors or textbooks. Sometimes this rule application is successful, but sometimes it is
not. For example, a lesson plan or textbook that refers to the English past perfect tense as
the “past past” can lead the second language learner to erroneously use the past perfect for
events in the distant past (all events which occurred long ago) without relating these to any
more recent past event or time frame, as in the isolated statement, *“My relatives had come
from Italy in the 1800s.” Another example is the use of overly formal classroom expressions
in conversations with peers outside the classroom. Such errors resulting from transfer of
training have been called “induced errors.”
Strategies of communication are used by the learner to get meaning across when the inter-
language system does not yet provide the requisite forms to do so in a native-like way. In
the attempt to communicate meaning (for example, to refer to an electrical cord in English)
when the IL does not contain the exact lexical item needed, learners can use a variety of
strategies of communication. So, for example, they can use an approximate term (a tube);
describe its function (a kind of corder that you use for electric thing I do not exactly the name);
or describe its appearance (a wire with eh two plugs in each side). Sometimes the linguistic
forms and patterns used in such attempts, if they prove successful in communicating with
the interlocutor, may persist for a time in the interlanguage.
Strategies of learning are the learner’s conscious attempts to master the target language.
Examples of such strategies are the use of mnemonics to remember target vocabulary, the
memorizing of verb declensions or textbook dialogues, the use of flash cards, and so on.
Clearly, such strategies are often successful, but they can also result in error. For example,
the mnemonic mediator word may become confused with the TL word. An example of the
latter might be that an English-speaking learner of Spanish might use a mediator word pot
in order to remember that the Spanish word for duck is pato—but might end up using the
English word pot in interlanguage productions.
4 INTERLANGUAGE
The Relevant Data for the Study of Interlanguage
What data should be used to study interlanguage rules? According to Selinker (1972), the
relevant data are utterances produced by second language learners when they are trying
to communicate meaning in the target language in unrehearsed situations. Other data are
irrelevant—learner utterances produced in response to classroom drills and exercises, and
learner introspections and intuitions about what is grammatical in the target language. In
such activities, the learner’s attention is focused on grammar rules or target language forms.
Such data, according to Selinker, do not provide information about the interlanguage system
that underlies spontaneous unrehearsed speech production. Rather, it is information about
what the learner has consciously learned about the target language system.
From the beginning, other scholars disagreed with Selinker about what data should be
used to study interlanguage. Corder argued that researchers ought to draw upon a wide
range of data sources—including learner intuitions of grammaticality—in exploring learn-
ers’ language. Others, particularly those investigating the role of universal grammar in SLA,
shared Corder’s perspective. But Selinker argued that when one uses these different data
elicitation techniques, they may provide information about different linguistic systems. If
one asks a learner whether a given sentence is grammatical, one cannot be sure whether that
learner’s response is based upon the NL, the IL, or the learner’s perception of the TL. All
these responses may be different from the IL norm revealed in that learner’s utterances pro-
duced in the attempt to communicate meaning. In essence, the most basic research-design
question involved in the study of interlanguages—what data shall we use to study
interlanguage?—raises very complex issues concerning the relationship between intuitions
of grammaticality, language production, and language perception, very similar to issues
raised by Labov (1970) in sociolinguistic work. This issue is still unresolved in SLA research.
The Revised Interlanguage Hypothesis
Since the interlanguage hypothesis was proposed in 1972, it has had considerable impact on
the field of second language acquisition, and has evolved in certain ways (Han & Tarone,
2014). Some continuing themes of the hypothesis are expanded upon below, and may be
explored further in Tarone (2014).
The original interlanguage hypothesis was restricted to apply only to adults acquiring
second languages. However, subsequent studies in French immersion programs in Canada
showed that children produced interlanguages that were apparently fossilized, and had sub-
stantial influence from NL transfer. There appeared to be sociolinguistic reasons for this phe-
nomenon: the children received native-speaker input only from their teacher and gave each
other substantial non-native input. They had not usually been given enough opportunity
and incentive to produce what Swain (1995) called “comprehensible output”—attempts to
produce the interlanguage in meaningful communication with others.
A second theme from the IL hypothesis was seen in the influence of universal grammar
on the development of interlanguage. Universal grammar is assumed to be central to the
development of natural languages, but is interlanguage a natural language? Selinker’s initial
hypothesis argued that IL is not, following this reasoning: (a) Natural languages are pro-
duced by universal grammar (UG); (b) but interlanguages, unlike native languages, fossilize
and evidence native language transfer; (c) interlanguages therefore must be produced by
cognitive processes other than UG; (d) therefore ILs do not have to obey language universals.
Adjemian (1976) took the opposing position, arguing that interlanguages are natural lan-
guages (although, unlike other natural languages, IL rule systems are “permeable” to inva-
sion from NL and TL rules systems). In this view, interlanguages are products of the same
INTERLANGUAGE 5
universal grammar that produces native languages. As natural languages, interlanguages

have to obey language universals. Unlike other natural languages, ILs fossilize because of
complex changes in cases where parameters have already been set for the NL, and a TL
with different parameter settings must be learned. Debate on this issue has been ongoing
and lively (White, 1990).
A third theme of the interlanguage hypothesis is seen in a growing interest in the way inter-
language forms shift and change in different social contexts (Tarone, 1979, 1988). Increasing
research evidence shows that social context is central to interlanguage development; for
example, a significantly more fluent, grammatical, and transfer-free interlanguage is evi-
denced in some social contexts than in others. In some cases, social contexts can change
developmental sequences in SLA (Tarone & Liu, 1995). International teaching assistants
may be more fluent and grammatical in lecturing on their academic field than when talk-
ing about an everyday topic like favorite foods or bicycling (Selinker & Douglas, 1985).
Bayley and Tarone (2012) review variationist SLA studies and conclude that these show
that the variation in learner language is systematic. Variation in interlanguage production,
documented in dozens of variationist studies, has profound implications for data elicitation
and analysis in research (Preston, 1989, 2002; Tarone, 2000; Geeslin & Gudmestad, 2010).
Variationist researchers argue that because production of given interlanguage forms varies
systematically in relation to social context, task, topic, focus on form, interlocutor, and so
on, researchers need to document the contextual factors in play in each elicitation, and
use sophisticated statistical tools to model interlanguage. Conceptually, the chameleon-like
character of ILs, and evidence (e.g., Rampton, 2013) that bilinguals agentively deploy all
their language systems, whether NL or IL, variably in social context for stylistic purposes,
raises serious questions about whether and how traditional linguistic notions developed to
account only for monolinguals in fact apply to the bilingual mind. Fasold and Preston (2007)
offer a psycholinguistic model showing how the bilingual brain can exert agency in acti-
vating a wide range of linguistic features variably for sociocultural and stylistic purposes.
See Douglas Fir Group (2016) for detail.
A fourth theme is the phenomenon of fossilization. How inevitable is fossilization and
what are the forces that create it? Scovel proposed the Joseph Conrad phenomenon, to draw
attention to the very common case where an adult learner’s phonological system may fos-
silize, but the morphology, syntax, and lexicon may not. Scovel (1988), like Selinker, argues
that the causes of phonological fossilization are neurolinguistic in nature, and related to the
process of cerebral lateralization, which is completed at puberty. But there is certainly dis-
agreement among interlanguage researchers as to both the inevitability of fossilization, and
(relatedly) the causes of fossilization (Han, 2004). Typically, those who argue that fossiliza-
tion is caused by sociolinguistic forces (such as group pressure to conform to NL norms)
also argue that fossilization is not an inevitable process. Such researchers suggest that if
learners can identify with the TL social group, or if their need is great enough, they will be
able to continue learning the second language until their production/perception is indis-
tinguishable from that of native speakers. And our view of fossilization must be tempered
by the reality of IL variation; bilingual speakers with arguably fossilized IL phonology or
morphology have been shown to spontaneously shift to more target-like forms in language
play producing “voices” in oral narratives (Moreno, 2016; LaScotte & Tarone, in press). This
issue is far from settled.
There has been some change in the way some of the psycholinguistic processes shaping
interlanguage are viewed. For example, the study of transfer has been expanded and termed
“crosslinguistic influence,” exploring how NL, IL, and TL influence one another. We have
learned transfer may operate selectively: for example, some things transfer from the NL to
IL, and some things do not. A crucial question is: what gets transferred? Can we predict in
advance which characteristics will influence an IL and which ones will not? One promising
6 INTERLANGUAGE
notion is that of multiple effects: when transfer combines with other influences, such as
markedness factors, learning strategies, or transfer of training, then there may be greater
likelihood of fossilization. So, for example, an early stage of verbal negation common among
all second language learners involves putting a negator (like no) before the verb. Spanish
does negate verbs this way (as in Juan no habla for John does not talk) and Spanish speakers
acquiring English L2 are more likely to fossilize at this stage (producing John no talk). Thus,
negative NL transfer has the effect of amplifying the possibilities for fossilization when it
interacts with other influences, such as stages of L2 acquisition. In another example, the
psycholinguistic process of learning strategies first identified by Selinker (1972) has become
a focus of considerable research (Oxford, 2017).
Finally, research on interlanguage has expanded far beyond its original focus on phonol-
ogy, morphology, syntax, and lexis, to include social context. For example, research on
interlanguage pragmatics now includes comparative work on the way learners execute
speech acts across three linguistic systems (Kasper & Rose, 2003; Taguchi & Roever, 2017).
For expanded work on interlanguage, see contributions to Han and Tarone (2014), and the
Douglas Fir Group (2016).
The interlanguage hypothesis provided the initial spark that ignited a field of research on
second language acquisition/learning, and it continues to provide a broad and productive
framework for research across multiple theoretical orientations. The research questions it
originally raised continue to be among the most central and interesting research questions
in the field.
SEE ALSO: Crosslinguistic Influence in Second Language Acquisition; Pragmatic Transfer;

Cross-Cultural Pragmatics; Crosslinguistic Influence in Second Language Acquisition;
Research Methods and Sociocultural Approaches in Second Language Acquisition; Quali-
tative Sociolinguistics Research; Attention, Noticing, and Awareness in Second Language
Acquisition; Agency in Second Language Acquisition; Critical Period; Foreign Accent;
Implicit Learning in Second Language Acquisition; Multicompetence
References
Adjemian, C. (1976). On the nature of interlanguage systems. Language Learning, 26, 297–330.
Bayley, R., & Tarone, E. (2012). Variationist perspectives. In S. Gass & A. Mackey (Eds.), The Rout-
ledge handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 41–56). New York, NY: Routledge.
Corder, S. P. (1967). The significance of learners’ errors. International Review of Applied Linguistics,
5, 161–70.
Corder, S. P. (1981). Error analysis and interlanguage. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Douglas Fir Group. (2016). A transdisciplinary framework for SLA in a multilingual world. Mod-
ern Language Journal, 100(S1), 19–47.
Fasold, R., & Preston, D. (2007). The psycholinguistic unity of inherent variability: Old Occam
whips out his razor. In R. Bayley & C. Lucas (Eds.), Sociolinguistic variation: Theory, methods
and applications (pp. 45–69). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Geeslin, K., & Gudmestad, A. (2010). An exploration of the range and frequency of occurrence of
forms in potentially variable structures in second-language Spanish. Studies in Second Lan-
guage Acquisition, 32, 433–63.
Han, Z.-H. (2004). Fossilization in adult second language acquisition. Clevedon, England: Multilin-
gual Matters.
Han, Z.-H., & Tarone, E. (Eds.). (2014). Interlanguage: 40 years later. Amsterdam, Netherlands: John
Benjamins.
Kasper, G., & Rose, I. R. (2003). Pragmatic development in a second language. Oxford, England:
Blackwell.
INTERLANGUAGE 7
Labov, W. (1970). The study of language in its social context. Studium Generale, 23, 30–87.
Lado, R. (1957). Linguistics across cultures. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
LaScotte, D., & Tarone, E. (in press). Heteroglossia and constructed dialogue in SLA. Modern Lan-
guage Journal (Special issue).
Lenneberg, E. (1967). Biological foundations of language. New York, NY: John Wiley.
Moreno, L. (2016). Channeling Charlie: Suprasegmental pronunciation in a second language learner’s
performance of others’ voices (Unpublished MA qualifying paper). University of Minnesota,
Minneapolis. Retrieved February 17, 2018 from University of Minnesota Digital Conser-
vancy, http://hdl.handle.net/11299/183052
Nemser, W. (1971). Approximative systems of foreign-language learners. International Review of
Applied Linguistics, 9, 115–23.
Oxford, R. (2017). Teaching and researching language learning strategies (2nd ed.). New York, NY:
Routledge.
Preston, D. (1989). Sociolinguistics and second language acquisition. Oxford, England: Blackwell.
Preston, D. (2002). A variationist perspective on SLA: Psycholinguistic concerns. In R. Kaplan
(Ed.), Oxford handbook of applied linguistics (pp. 141–59). Oxford, England: Oxford University
Press.
Rampton, B. (2013). Styling in a language learned later in life. Modern Language Journal, 97, 360–82.
Scovel, T. (1988). A time to speak. Boston, MA: Heinle.
Selinker, L. (1972). Interlanguage. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 10, 209–31.
Selinker, L. (1992). Rediscovering interlanguage. New York, NY: Longman.
Selinker, L., & Douglas, D. (1985). Wrestling with “context” in interlanguage theory. Applied Lin-
guistics, 6, 190–204.
Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook & B. Seidl-
hofer (Eds.), Principle and practice in applied linguistics: Studies in honour of H. G. Widdowson
(pp. 125–44). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Taguchi, N., & Roever, C. (2017). Second language pragmatics. Oxford, England: Oxford University
Press.
Tarone, E. (1979). Interlanguage as chameleon. Language Learning, 29, 181–91.
Tarone, E. (1988). Variation in interlanguage. London, England: Edward Arnold.
Tarone, E. (2000). Still wrestling with “context” in interlanguage theory. Annual Review of Applied
Linguistics, 20, 182–98.
Tarone, E. (2014). Enduring themes from the interlanguage hypothesis. In Z. H. Han & E. Tarone
(Eds.), Interlanguage: 40 years later (pp. 7–26). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Tarone, E., & Liu, G. (1995). Situational context, variation and SLA theory. In G. Cook &
B. Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principle and practice in applied linguistics: Studies in honour of H. G.
Widdowson (pp. 107–24). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Weinreich, U. (1968). Languages in contact. The Hague, Netherlands: De Gruyter.
White, L. (1990). Universal grammar and second language acquisition. Amsterdam, Netherlands: John
Benjamins.
Suggested Readings
Allwright, D., & Hanks, J. (2009). The developing language learner: An introduction to exploratory
practice. Basingstoke, England: Palgrave Macmillan.
Swan, M., & Smith, B. (2001). Learner English: A teacher’s guide to interference and other problems.
Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Tarone, E., & Swierzbin, B. (2009). Exploring learner language. Oxford, England: Oxford University
Press.

Interlanguage - Tarone (2018) Handout 2

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Interlanguage - Tarone (2018) Handout 2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

10.1002/9781405198431.wbeal0561.pub2, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781405198431.wbeal0561.pub2 by TESTREGPROV3, Wiley Online Library on [10/01/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.

Origins of the Concept of Interlanguage

The Relevant Data for the Study of Interlanguage

The Revised Interlanguage Hypothesis

universal grammar that produces native languages. As natural languages, interlanguages

SEE ALSO: Crosslinguistic Influence in Second Language Acquisition; Pragmatic Transfer;

You might also like