Interlanguage Interlanguage developed as a concept in Error Analysis.

While Error Analysis has fallen out of favor, studies of Interlanguage have not. Why? Because Interlanguage can be studied empirically. Three areas of Interlanguage inquiry: 1.Systematicity / Variation 2.Development sequences 3.L1 influence

Interlanguage: Systematicity Recall that an interlanguage is the language system that the learner constructs out of the linguistic data to which [s/he] has been exposed (LF&L, p. 60). Many studies of consider the system of interlanguages. While interlanguage may be nontarget-like, it may nevertheless be systematic that is, rule-governed at any particular moment. Many scholars investigate the systematicity that may underlie non-target-like interlanguages. May underlie: other non-target-like features of interlanguage may be nonsystematic variation.
2

Interlanguage: Systematicity Huebner, T. (1983). Linguistic systems and linguistic change in an interlanguage. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 6(1), 3353. Case study of the English IL development of a Hmong man in Hawaii. 17 hours of recorded speech examined, with attention given to two structures, among them his use of da, something like the English definite article the. Yu tol da Jaepanii gow da cher. [You told the Japanese woman that you were going to the church.] Da used in 64 percent of NP environments 3 appropriate to the definite article.

Interlanguage: Systematicity Da used in 64 percent of NP environments appropriate to the definite article. But what is the appropriate NP environment for definite articles? What is the rule for the use of the definite (the) and indefinite article (a/n) in English? Son 1: Dad gave me a car. Son 2: Not the car? Son 1: No, a Taurus. or Son 1: No, the Taurus. What is Son 2 referring to? What difference does the pair of replies given by Son 1 indicate? 4

Interlanguage: Systematicity What is the appropriate NP environment for definite articles?

Noun phrases may refer to something specific (specific referent, +SR) and / or to something known 5 to the hearer (+HK) or not (-SR; -HK).

Interlanguage: Systematicity Quadrant 1: The lion is a noble animal (-SR, +HK). Quadrant 4: Used in equative and other structures (-SR, -HK). Quadrant 3: Dad gave me a Taurus (+SR, -HK). A refers to a specific Taurus, but not one known to the hearer.

Interlanguage: Systematicity Quadrant 3: Dad gave me a Taurus (+SR, -HK). A refers to a specific Taurus, but not one known to the hearer. Quad 2: Dad gave me the Taurus. (+SR, +HK) The refers to a specific Taurus known to the hearer.

Interlanguage: Systematicity Da used in 64 percent of correct NP environments. In most of the other 36 percent of NP environments that required the definite article, the NP was the topic of the sentence [topic: whatever the sentence is about. The tree is magnificent.] Huebner theorized that his informant had developed an IL rule for the use of his definite article as follows: use da in NP environments characterized by +SR, +HK, -Topic.

Interlanguage: Systematicity use da in NP environments characterized by +SR, +HK, -Topic. Logic: If it is the topic of the sentence, it is known to the hearer by default, and therefore doesnt need a definite article; perhaps this is a kind of simplification rule, to eliminate redundant features / structures. If the NP is not the topic, Huebners informant may have theorized, it does need the definite article. Conclusion: IL systematic, if non-target-like.

IL: Development Sequences, First Lge Learning First language development: Brown, Roger. (1973) A first language. Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press. HLAL, p. 3: Case study; 4 years (diachronic / longitudinal); 3 children from age 2; samples every 1-2 weeks. Acquisition of 14 morphemes:
1. 3 3 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. -ing on in plural s past irregular possessive s uncontracted copula (I am) articles a the 8. past regular 9. 3rd person regular s 10. 3rd person irregular has 11. uncontracted aux (he is eating) 12. contracted copula (Im) 13. contracted aux (hes coming)

10

IL: Development Sequences, First Lge Learning 0.86, 0.87, and 0.89 correlations among three children for order of acquisition of 14 morphemes. de Villiers, J., & de Villiers, P. (1973). A crosssectional study of the acquisition of grammatical morphemes. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 2(3), 267278. Synchronic / cross sectional study; 21 children ages 16 40 months, two 1.5-hour sessions. Three methods of analysis showed 0.78, 0.84, and 0.87 correlations among children for order of acquisition of same 14 morphemes.
11

IL: Development Sequences, First Lge Learning 1.Structures most frequently produced in childs environment not necessarily learned earlier. 2.Positive reinforcement had no impact on acquisition of morphemes. What can we conclude, epistemologically, from these findings? I.e., what process explains first language acquisition? Language learning is not a behavioral process of habit formation, but is driven by something else.

12

IL: Development Sequences, SLA Very productive area of inquiry in SLA Methodological variations: Longitudinal / diachronic (like Brown): small number of subjects studied over a period of time; v. cross-sectional / synchronic (like de Villiers & de Villiers): large number of subjects at a specific time. Demographic variations: children v. adult SLA Language variations: Meisel, J.M., Clahsen, H., & Pienemann, J. (1981). On determining developmental stages in natural second language acquisition. SSLA, 3, 109135. 13

IL: Development Sequences, SLA Development stages variations (HLAL pp. 8293): Development sequences for Interrogative formation Negation formation Relative clause formation Morphemes (Dulay and Burt) Pragmatics (Rose)

14

IL: Development Sequences, Dulay & Burt Literature Review (pp. 3738) 2 pages! Error analysis reveals creative construction, p. 37: children gradually construct rules for speech they hear, guided by universal innate mechanisms which cause them to formulate certain types of hypotheses about the language system being acquired, until the mismatch between what they are exposed to and what they produce is resolved. The second episode, p. 38. Whats this? Their study of English morpheme acquisition by three different groups of Spanish speakers. What limits their conclusions, methodologically? Results may be driven by common first language. 15

IL: Development Sequences, Dulay & Burt Methods of Data Collection longitudinal or cross-sectional? who are subjects? how does this answer the constraint of episode #2? how did the researchers find subjects? how did they collect data? what is the Bilingual Syntax Measure (BSM) (pp. 3940)

16

IL: Development Sequences, Dulay & Burt Methods of Data Collection what morphemes (functors) did they study?

17

IL: Development Sequences, Dulay & Burt Methods of Data Analysis how was the data analyzed / coded? obligatory occasions 0 points if no morpheme supplied in O.O.: She is dance___ 1 point if morpheme is supplied, but it is incorrect: She is dances 2 points if correct morpheme is supplied: She is dancing.

18

IL: Development Sequences, Dulay & Burt Methods of Data Analysis group individual scores morpheme X summed total possible obligatory occasions

19

IL: Development Sequences, Dulay & Burt Results

20

IL: Development Sequences, Dulay & Burt Results What do the declining lines mean re: the acquisition of specific morphemes? What do they mean relative to one another? i.e. to the Spanish and Chinese language groups? Note correlations, p. 50: 0.95 / 0.96 What do these mean?

21

IL: Development Sequences, Dulay & Burt Related Studies

22

IL: Development Sequences, Dulay & Burt Related Studies

23

IL: Development Sequences, Dulay & Burt Related Studies

What conclusions can we draw?

24

IL: Development Sequences, Dulay & Burt Conclusion Speakers of numerous native languages (Spanish, Cantonese, Greek, Persian, Italian, etc.), at various ages, acquire English morphemes in remarkably similar orders. These studies provide a strong indication that universal cognitive mechanisms are the basis for the childs organization of a target language, and that it is the L2 system, rather than the L1 system that guides the acquisition process (p. 52).

25

IL: Development Sequences, Dulay & Burt Critique Meisel, Clahsen, & Pienemann (1981) challenge Dulay and Burt. By focusing exclusively on target language structures (she is dancing), D&B ignore systematic non-target-like grammars that may exist in informants interlanguages.

26

Interlanguage: First Language Influence Markedness Phenomenon A in some language is more marked than phenomenon B if the presence of A implies the presence of B, but the presence of B does not imply the presence of A (implicational relations). Marked or unmarked? Sarah is a senior. Sarah is a student. If she is a senior, she must be a student, so this proposition is marked. If she is a student, then she may be a senior, but we dont know, so this proposition is unmarked.
27

Interlanguage: First Language Influence Markedness Phenomenon A in some language is more marked than phenomenon B if the presence of A implies the presence of B, but the presence of B does not imply the presence of A (implicational relations). Markedness Differential Hypothesis 1.Those areas of the target language which different from the native language and are more marked than the native language will be difficult. 2.Those areas of the target language which are different from the native language, but are not more marked than the native language, will not be 28 difficult.

Interlanguage: First Language Influence Markedness English and French both have the phoneme / /. pleasure / jamais In English words, / / never occurs syllable initial (distinguished from words borrowed from French, like Jacques). BUT (markedness studies show), the syllable initial / / is not marked in English. Thus, while the phonology of French is different than English (relative to the distribution of the phoneme / /), that particular phonology will not be difficult for native 29 English speakers to learn.

Interlanguage: First Language Influence Markedness Eckman, F. (1977). Markedness and the contrastive analysis hypothesis. Language Learning, 27, 315330.

30