7/28/2019 Inter Language 1

1/30

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

1

7/28/2019 Inter Language 1

2/30

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 non-target-like, it may nevertheless be systematic that

is, rule-governed at any particular moment.

Many scholars investigate the systematicity thatmay underlie non-target-like interlanguages.

May underlie: other non-target-like features of

interlanguage may be nonsystematic variation.2

7/28/2019 Inter Language 1

3/30

7/28/2019 Inter Language 1

4/30

7/28/2019 Inter Language 1

5/30

7/28/2019 Inter Language 1

6/30

Interlanguage: Systematicity

6

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.

7/28/2019 Inter Language 1

7/30

7/28/2019 Inter Language 1

8/30

7/28/2019 Inter Language 1

9/30

7/28/2019 Inter Language 1

10/30

7/28/2019 Inter Language 1

11/30

7/28/2019 Inter Language 1

12/30

7/28/2019 Inter Language 1

13/30

7/28/2019 Inter Language 1

14/30

IL: Development Sequences, SLA

Development stages variations (HLAL pp. 8293):

Development sequences for

Interrogative formation

Negation formation

Relative clause formationMorphemes (Dulay and Burt)

Pragmatics (Rose)

14

7/28/2019 Inter Language 1

15/30

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 beingacquired, 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

7/28/2019 Inter Language 1

16/30

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

7/28/2019 Inter Language 1

17/30

IL: Development Sequences, Dulay & Burt

Methods of Data Collection

what morphemes (functors) did they study?

17

7/28/2019 Inter Language 1

18/30

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

7/28/2019 Inter Language 1

19/30

7/28/2019 Inter Language 1

20/30

7/28/2019 Inter Language 1

21/30

IL D l t S D l & B t

7/28/2019 Inter Language 1

22/30

IL: Development Sequences, Dulay & Burt

Related Studies

22

IL D l t S D l & B t

7/28/2019 Inter Language 1

23/30

IL: Development Sequences, Dulay & Burt

Related Studies

23

7/28/2019 Inter Language 1

24/30

7/28/2019 Inter Language 1

25/30

IL D l t S D l & B t

7/28/2019 Inter Language 1

26/30

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

I t l Fi t L I fl

7/28/2019 Inter Language 1

27/30

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 thisproposition is marked.

If she is a student, then she may be a senior, but we

dont know, so this proposition is unmarked. 27

I t l Fi t L I fl

7/28/2019 Inter Language 1

28/30

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 Hypothesis1.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

difficult. 28

Interlang age First Lang age Infl ence

7/28/2019 Inter Language 1

29/30

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 thephonology of French is different than English

(relative to the distribution of the phoneme / /), that

particular phonology will not be difficult for native

En lish s eakers to learn. 29

Interlanguage: First Language Influence

7/28/2019 Inter Language 1

30/30

Interlanguage: First Language Influence

Markedness

Eckman, F. (1977). Markedness and the contrastive

analysis hypothesis. Language Learning, 27, 315-

330.

30