Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 9

2.

- DEFINING INTERLANGUAGE

Our dear SHARER Mara Fernanda Di Grandi has sent us this article to SHARE with all of you. Interlanguage By Ranganayaki Srinivas

While learning a second language, learners build up a system for themselves which is different in some ways from their first language and second language systems. The system which the learners build up for themselves has been given various names but the most widely used terminology is that suggested by Selinker (1974). He calls this Interlanguage to emphasize the structurally intermediate status of the learners language system between his mother tongue and his target language. A detailed study of this Interlanguage could help us to understand the learners problems better and try to provide timely help to learners, so that they achieve competence in the language they are trying to learn. Selinkers theory of Interlanguage Based on the theory that there is a psychological structure latent in the brain which is activated when one attempts to learn a second language. Selinker (1972) proposes the theory of Interlanguage. Selinker says that in a given situation the utterances produced by the learner are different from those native speakers would produce had they attempted to convey the same meaning. This comparison reveals a separate linguistic system. This system can be observed when we study the utterances of the learners who attempt to produce a target language norm. To study the psychological processes involved one should compare the Interlanguage of the learner with two things. These two things are as under: (1) Utterances in the native language to convey the same message made by the learner (2) Utterances in the target language to convey the same message made by the native speaker of that language (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) language transfer transfer of training strategies of second language learning strategies of second language communication and overgeneralization

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

Jean DSouza (1977) thinks these five processes could be reduced to three for according to him there is no clear cut distinction between processes three, four and five. According to him overgeneralization could include strategies of second language learning and strategies of second language communication. Besides he points out that it is not always possible to say with certainty whether a learner uses a particular form because he thinks it is enough to communicate effectively or because he is using a particular strategy. Following are the three processes suggested by Jean DSouza: (1) transfer from previous learning experience; errors due to interference; (2) simplification and overgeneralization of elements of the target language system; errors due to learning strategies; and (3) errors arising from teaching methods and materials employed; teaching induced errors. Selinker in fact discusses in detail what he means by strategy of second language learning and strategy of second language communication. According to him learner strategies are culture bound to some extent. He gives the example of chanting which is used as a learning device in many traditional cultures. These strategies can be present in the conscious or subconscious level. When a learner realizes that he has no linguistic competence for handling a target language material he evolves some strategies to get through the situation. Whatever strategies he uses considerably affect his surface structure of sentences underlying his Interlanguage utterances. Since we do not have adequate information as to what these strategies might be and how they might work we can only roughly attribute the sources of his utterances to one or the other strategy. One strategy which probably works at the conscious level may be the learners attempt to reduce the target language to a simpler system. For example, if the learner has adopted the strategy that all verbs are either transitive or intransitive, he may produce Interlanguage forms such as I am feeling thirsty or Dont worry. I am hearing him (Selinker 1972). Selinker quotes Coulter (1968) and says learners avoid grammatical formatives such as articles, plural forms and past tense forms as in, It was nice, nice trailer, big one. I have many hundred carpenter(s) my own. I was in Frankfurt when I fill(ed) application. All these could be the result of a learning strategy of simplification but Coulter attributes them to a communication strategy. He thinks because of past experience the learners have come to know that if they worry about grammatical processes their speech would not be fluent and hence native speakers may not have the patience to hear them through. Besides the learners also felt they did not need a form such as English plurals to communicate efficiently.

As Jean DSouza says one cannot really draw a line between overgeneralization strategy of second language learning and second language communication. It seems to be a matter of looking at the same thing from different points of view. What actually goes on in a learners mind and how he decides to say one thing instead of the other cannot be really perceived. One can only speculate and say this is what probably happens. Unless one is able to study ones own mind very objectively while trying to learn a new language the strategies used cannot be actually stated. Even if such a study of ones mind without any subjectivity is possible this may not be true of others for each individual has his own peculiar nature, way of learning things, way of responding to given circumstances, etc. Selinker also talks of a subconscious strategy of second language learning which he calls cue copying. He gives the example of the /r/ sound at the end of words like California and saw which foreign students of English who have had teachers from the Boston regularly reproduce in their Interlanguage. But he does not state how this is different from what he calls transfer of training. While discussing transfer of training he says Serbo-Croation speakers at all levels of English proficiency have difficulty in distinguishing between he and she because their teachers and text books almost always present drills with he and never with she. So here too the learners could be said to use the copy the cue strategy. Whatever the differences may be it is not very difficult to identify a few strategies and study the learners errors from those points of view. Selinker himself says th at there could be number of other processes in addition to these five processes mentioned by him. Differences of opinion cannot be avoided since what takes place in the mind of the learners when they attempt to learn a language cannot be stated with absolute certainty. Most of the efforts to understand the process of language learning are speculative and abstract. But the basic concepts behind the apparent differences of opinion appear to be the same in all cases. All that one needs to understand is that when children are exposed to a particular language they do not learn the grammar of that language straight away. They process the input data and form certain hypotheses. They cook up their own grammar which may be called G1. If G is the grammar of the language they are learning, they may use and discard a number of grammars like G1 and G2 before they get to G. As per their exposure they constantly test their hypotheses and keep altering it. Hence their grammar at a particular point of time is systematic and has its own rules. But it is not constant. It keeps changing in line with the exposure they receive. Similarly for second language learning all these processes have tobe gone through. Hence the second language learners are almost in the same position as the first language learners but for the fact that they already have one language in their possession. Since our concepts and ideas are largely structured by our first language, the first language has a lot of influence over the learning of other languages. Hence learners could be said to view the second language through their first language and arrive at a system which is midway between their first and second language. This intermediary system is given the name Interlanguage by Selinker. Other terminologies have also been used by various others to identify this system. Different factors have been considered as the most important aspect of this system and accordingly the names have been assigned.

William Nemser calls it Approximative system. This term emphasizes the transitional and dynamic nature of the system. JackRichards thinks it is the Transitional competence while Dulay and Burt say that the learners system reveal their Creative construction hypothesis. Pit Corder calls it the Idiosyncratic dialect of the learners. Idiosyncratic Dialect Pit Corder [1967] suggested that linguistics should study the process of second and foreign language acquisition and the various strategies learners may use. Since then he has contributed a number of articles wherein he discusses the nature of the learners language. He calls the learners language as their idiosyncratic dialect. PitCorder (1971) says that this dialect of the learners is (1) regular. (2)systematic and (3) meaningful. According to Pit Corder the learners utterances can be accounted for by a set of ru les. This set of rules is obtained from the target social dialect. He gives two reasons why the learners language should be considered as a dialect of the target language. The two reasons are as follows: (1) It is a language and has a grammar. (2) At least some of the rules in this grammar are the same as those in the target language grammar Linguistically two languages which share the same rules are dialects and hence the learners language can be called a dialect. Having acquired this dialect the learn ers constantly try to change it to bring it in line with the standard dialect. This happens as far as the learners continue to learn. Once the learning stops their dialectis fossilized. That is those utterances which are deviant from the target language point of view remain unchanged. Pit Corder also points out how an understanding of the learners system can help the teacher and the learners. According to Pit Corder the study of the learners dialect would tell the teacher how far the learners have progressed towards the goal and what more they have to learn yet. He also points out that if the learners utter a correct form we cannot take it as a proof that thelearners have learned the systems which would generate that form in a native speaker. For they might just be repeating an utterance that they have heard before. They may not have understood the system behind it. In such cases they cannot be said to be using the language. Spolsky (1966) uses the term language -like behaviour to account for those utterances which are merely repeated from memory without a proper understanding of the system behind it. Besides Pit Corder points out that the learners utterances should be studied in their situational context. For often it so happens that the learners utterance though well formed superficially does not express what the learners intended to say. Hence he categorizes the learners utterance under four heads as follows: (1) superficially well formed and appropriate (2) superficially well formed and inappropriate (3) superficially deviant but as far as can be judged appropriate (4) superficially deviant but as far as can be judged inappropriate

Pit Corder also points out that the child language and the language of aphasics are all deviant idiosyncratic dialects. Poetic language is deliberately deviant and the language of the aphasics is pathologically deviant. But the dialects of the children and the learners are the result of the learning process. Here both thec hildren acquiring their mother tongue and the learners learning a second language go through a similar process wherein they form hypotheses about the nature of the language and test them. But the task of the second language learners is much easier, according to Pit Corder, for they only have to find out how the system of the new language they are trying to learn differs from the system of their mother tongue. In so doing they commit a lot of errors which reveal a lot of mother tongue influence. The errors committed by the learners which show the influence of their mother tongue are often labeled as interference errors. The term suggests that old habits are interfering with those which are yetto be acquired. But according to Pit Corder possession of a language makes it easy for the learners to learn a new language as they have already learnt to adopt some strategies for language learning and they have only to find out how the new language is different from their mother tongue. Hence errors are not signs of inhibition but are evidences which show what strategies the learners are using to acquire a language. An analysis of the learners language could help us adjust our syllabuses to the built -in syllabus which the learners have made for themselves. But it is not very easy to analyse the learners dialect mainly because of two reasons. Firstly, the learners dialect is not stable and secondly, interpretation is difficult because of the peculiarity of the dialect. But if we understand the learners built-in syllabus through the study of their errors we could create better conditions for language learning. We could help the learners to improve and adapt their strategies so that a development of the language takes place in their mind spontaneously. The suggestion that our syllabuses should suit the needs of the learners is not new. Carroll (1955) made such a proposal and thought if the learners were asked to find verbal responses to certain problems taking the help of their teacher or a dictionary they could learn better. Ferguson (1966) points out if at all our syllabuses have any considerate foundation; they are often based upon impressionistic judgments and vaguely conceived theoretical principles. Now it is an accepted fact that learners errors should be systematically studied and our syllabuses should be formed in such a way that they are in line with the strategies used by the learner. If this can be done we may be able to allow the learners innate strategies to dictate our practice and determine our syllabus; we may learn to adapt ourselves to his needs rather than impose upon him our preconceptions of how he ought to learn, what he ought to learn and when he ought to learn it (Pit Corder 1967 /p27) Approximative System William Nemser (1971) employs the term Approximative system to identify a learners linguistic system which is distinct from his mother tongue and the target language he is attempting to learn. Here by the term approximative he means that the learner is progressing towards the target language and his system is developmental in nature. The

term system implies that he is using aset of rules and hence his language is not a random. As the learner receives more and more exposure and collects new data he attempts to change his system. He constantly tries to alter his system to bring the system closer to the target language. Hence his system should be studied from three points of view (1) his mother tongue. (2) his target language and (3) as an independent system itself. It is important to study this system separately because it can provide attested information or immediate utility in teaching and course development on patterns of learning behavior for the principal structures of the target languages (Nemser 1971). What Nemser is trying to suggest is that the materials based on Contrastive linguistic studies are not so effective because they take into consideration only the learners mother tongue and his target language. If learners learning behavior as revealed from the study of his approximative system is understood we should be able to foresee the problems of a particular learner with respect to a particular target language. The learners system is internally structured and it varies according to the learners level of proficiency. According to Nemser this system is affected by two types of interference (1) internal (That is learner strategies which operate on the input) (2)external (That is learners previous learning experience). If the learners approximative system is analysed systematically we might be able to anticipate how a learner will react with respect to a particular target language structure viewing it from a particular language. According to Nemser there are two stages in the learning process of a second language learner. These two stages are identified as the early stages and the later stages. In the early stages a second language learner does not differentiate properly the phonological grammatical and lexical categories of his mother tongue and target language. In the later stages after learning the distribution of some of the formal elements he extends their distribution and commits errors. So his former stages are characterized by reinterpretation, hypercorrection and analogy. A number of studies have revealed the influence of mother tongue in beginners and the influence of overgeneralization in advanced learners. Thereby it can be seen that Nemser is right in saying that in the initial stages there is an underdifferenciation of the various categories of the target language from that of the learners mother tongue while in the later stages there is reinterpretation of whatever is misunderstood. Further, it has often been observed that a particular rule of subsystem which poses problems to one learner is easily acquired by another. This could be because of the learning strategies that each learner may be using. Hence Nemser rightly stresses the need to study individual learners systems to gain in sight into their learning strategies. Nemser also suggests that attempts should be made to keep the learners system transient or moving towards the target system. He says, effective language teaching implies preventing, or postponing as long as possible, the formation of permanent intermediate systems and subsystems (deviant phonological and grammatical structures). According to him a study of the learner system could make valuable contribution to contrastive linguistic theory and general for tackling students problems. According to him, an ultimate goal might be the reformulation of the native language and the target

language descriptions in terms of permitting the accurate projection of the learners approximative system throughout its successive stages in each contact situation. But it should be noted that this is not an easy task and a large number of studies have to be carried out before we could attempt such a description. Transitional Competence Jack C. Richards (1971) refers to the learners competence at a particular time, as the transitional competence. He says that the learners competence at a particular stage is full of what he calls as intralingual or developmental errors. These errors illustrate some of the characteristics of language acquisition. The learners competence is transitional because it keeps changing as long as the learner tries to improve his competence. If he stops learning his competence at a particular stage becomes his final grammatical competence. Intralingual errors are not caused by the learners inability to separate two languages. Their origins are found within the structure of English itself and through reference to the strategy by which a second language is acquired and taught. These errors are systematic and are not caused by memory lapses. fatigue and the like. These errors occur repeatedly from one year to the next with any group of learners (Richards1971). Developmental errors are caused because of the learner s efforts to build up hypothesis about the language from his limited experience in the classroom. Richards classifies these errors under various heads like, overgeneralization, ignorance of rule restrictions, incomplete application of rules and false concepts hypothesized. Richards thinks that an analysis of the learners developmental errors should help us to examine our teaching materials and make them more effective. The language learning assumptions behind material preparation and teaching practices could be changed, if we understand how a language is acquired. According to Richards, many teaching practices are based on the notion that the learner will reproduce exactly whatever is presented in his textbook or whatever is taught in the classroom. But often this does not happen. If a systematic study of the learners errors is undertaken, we could know the learning strategies used by the learner and the generalizations formed by him. This should be studied along with the teaching materials and techniques of presentation through which the learner attempts to learn the language. As Richards rightly points out the learner uses his own strategies to learn a language, which may be independent of the teaching methods. Teachers have often been annoyed at the learners committing errors, in spite of repeated instructions. They just fail to understand why their learners produce deviant forms when the right forms have been drilled again and again. They dont realize that a learner cannot be forced to learn anything by an external syllabus, because he has his own internal syllabus. With this internal syllabus he tries to build up a system of the target language for himself, through generalizations. As Pit Corder observes, a list of items in the syllabus only represent what is available for going in. What actually goes in depends on what the learners is ready to take in Richards is also right in saying that many of the course materials based on a contrastive approach to language teaching put undue emphasis on points of contrast. This leads to an unnatural use of English. If the learners exposure is limited to the confines of the

classroom and the textbooks he is likely to form generalizations based on these materials. Hence his competence will surely reflect a lot of deviant and inappropriate use of target language structures. Richards cites an instance, that is, the use of Present Continuous tense in an unnatural way found in many of the course books. These books give more importance to the continuous form because it is not present in the mother tongue of the learner. Another important point, which Richards makes, is about the way items are graded and presented in many course books. According to him the learners find it difficult to perceive the difference between two contrasting elements presented together in synonymous contexts. He rightly suggests that these items should be presented at different times in different contexts which are non-synonymous. He also suggests transformation exercises based on contrasts should be avoided. It is not difficult to perceive that Richards suggestions make a lot of sense. But course writers need to have native-like competence in the language to foresee the conflicts that the learners might face. In most of the places where English is taught as a second language the materials are prepared by those who do not understand the problems of the learners because their knowledge in the fields of linguistics and methodology is very superficial. Within the limitations of the resources we have we should try to help the learners to improve their competence. This we can do if we try to take account of the structural and developmental conflicts that can come about in language learning (Richards 1971). Richards is right in saying that course writers and classroom teachers should avoid presenting conflicting structures at the same time. But some amount of conflict between the newly presented item and the one that precedes it is bound to be there. Errors cannot be completely avoided. Without generalization speedy and efficient language learning is almost impossible. What we possibly can do is to minimize confusion in the minds of our learners as far as possible. If we find a certain set of learners commit errors repeatedly and if the particular error can be traced back to the textbook or method of presentation in the class we could try to rearrange the items and present them in different contexts and at different times.

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

Longitudinal studies of acquisition of mother tongue as well as English could be carried out to see how far the hypotheses about the grammatical rules of mother tongue and English are related. If a number of such studies are carried out generalizations based on these should enable us to introduce particular elements of English at such stages when it would likely to be of greatest benefit. If the learners learning strategies are understood by a systematic study of their errors and if a number of such studies make it possible to form certain generalizations such teaching procedures could be developed which make optimal use of the learners way of learning. Further if studies of second language learning in natural environments and informal classroom settings are compared effective pedagogic grammars could be prepared. If the teachers know the nature of the learners system to be transitional they would be on the look out for items which are fossilized. They would be able to help the learners improve their competence and bring it as close to native competence as possible. Even if they do not have the time to carry out systematic analyses the mere awareness of these concepts would influence their thinking. They might at least make a mental note of the errors that recur over long periods of time and treat them appropriately as part of their class work. If the teachers attitude towards errors changes they would at least encourage the learners to use the language in the class without worrying about their errors. Since the learners usually reflect the teachers attitude they will make attempts to form hypotheses and test them without any inhibition. They would use the language to express their feelings and attitudes instead of writing on some stale topics which are suggested by the teachers. They would actively participate in the learning process. 2005 Ranganayaki Srinivas

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi