Interlanguage Theory Essay

It is a well-attested fact that bookmans commit errors when learning a act oral communication. faultings are in fact considered inevitable in whatever(prenominal) learning assist. For a very long time different authors (Corder, 1967 Richards, 1971 Dulay and Burt, 1972, as cited in Taylor, 1975) see those errors non only as deviations of the rules still overly as important sources for reading the process of learning a prey dustup. The savants mental process and rules adopted by them at different st get on withs are evidenced by those errors. (Fauziati, 2011). It is, in that locationfore, the linguistic communication of the bookman that Larry Selinker (1972) would study and name inter dustup. He would consider interlanguage as followsL2 assimilators construct a linguistic governing body that draws, in part, on the learners L1 but is too different from it and also from the commit language. A learners interlanguage is, therefore, a unique linguistic establishment (a s cited in Ellis, 1997, pag. 33).This system of the language is evolutional and dynamic, and its grammar is under construction and in constant development. It may energise inconsistency errors but it will be changing and developing completely the time. Selinker (1972, as cited in Taylor, 1975) claims that interlanguage is not merely the learner target language grammar that is filled with errors due to the learners L1 interference but, instead, it is a linguistic system that reflects the learners dealing with the deviations of the target language itself. Selinker also states that the perspective of koine considers the learning strategies which the learner employs in a task despite of their mother tongue or kind of study they receive.According to Selinker (1972), there are a number of processes or strategies that the learner adopts in order to help them acquire the target language. The counterbalance maven is L1 Transfer, which is a learning strategy where the learner uses their own L1 as a resource. The learner transfers their knowledge of their native language into their target language attempts (Taylor, 1975, p. 393). The second process is L2 Transfer, in which the learner works out the rules of L2 and challenges them. The third process is Overgeneralization the learner uses an L2 rule in situations in which a native utterer would not use them.This can occur at different levels, namely, at the phonetic level, at the grammatical level, at the lexical level and at the level of discourse. Taylor (1975) defines overgeneralization as a process in which a language learner uses a syntactic rule of the target language inappropriately when he attempts to generate a novel target language comment. The fourth process or strategy is General teaching Principles the learner acquires strategies for learning the language, such(prenominal)(prenominal) as association or grouping.However, these strategies are not exclusive to language learning they can be applied to ei ther other kind of knowledge. Finally, the fifth process is Communication Strategies, which are put throughs that the learner carries out in order to compensate their lack of knowledge and also to reinforce or optimize communication. Among these strategies are body language, circumlocution, using a general term, resorting to L1, asking for help (the teacher or the dictionary), coining (making up a word) and avoidance. All of these five processes contribute to the development of the L2. some other important sign of Interlanguage is Fossilization, which is a term introduced also by Selinker in 1972. It refers to the perseveration of plateaus of non-target-like competence in the IL (as cited in Fauziati, 2011, p. 25). Selinker (1972) provides a precise exposition for fossilizationA mechanism that underlies surface linguistic material which speakers will run for to keep in their IL productive process, no matter what the age of the learner or the amount of instruction he receives i n the TL. (Selinker, 1972 229, cited in Han, 2002) In other words, fossilization can be described as the interruption of the process of development of interlanguage. Learners are usually expected to gain progress as their competence advances towards the target language system, and thus it contains less errors. However, some errors continue to occur and never disappear completely, and are, therefore, considered as fossilized. That is to say, such errors are permanent and defining characteristics of the learners language system (Fauziati, 2011).Among the factors that influence fossilization in the learners learning process, there are both external and internal reasons that are worth mentioning. environment is an external reason that can influence the students performance and it can be due to the lack of exposure to the language or probably the level of the course the student is taking is either higher(prenominal) or lower than their level of the language. As regards internal reaso ns, the learner himself is considered to be a significant influence on their performance. His personality (insecurity, family background, uncertainty), motivation, demotivation and backsliding (the student unlearns things he already knows and goes back to previous stages) contribute to the mechanism of fossilization.Another important point to consider is that of interlanguage hard-noseds, which has been defined by some authors, namely, Kasper and Dahl (1991), Kasper (1998) and Kasper and Rose (1999). However, in this paper, the concept of interlanguage pragmatics will be considered as followsThe investigation of non-native speakers comprehension and production of lecture acts, and the acquisition of L2-related delivery act knowledge. (Kasper and Dahl, 1991215, cited in Barron, 2001) Interlanguage pragmatics deals with use of the language as action and its research focuses on the learners use and acquisition of pragmatic knowledge.Although many studies on interlanguage have been b ased on self-produced speech entropy, there is considerable onerousy in processing such data in order to tackle with problems persisting in the L2 learners initial state. One possible reason for this is that the speech utterances are gathered so early and may not exactly reflect the L2 initial state. Another perplexing problem is that the collection may be scarce and useless. (Lakshmanan and Selinker, 2001)A further problem is that language learners, especially newfangled L2 learners, have been thought to undergo a silent period, during which they do not produce any utterance (Lakshmanan and Selinker, 2001). Although students may differ importantly with respect to the duration of their silent period since some of them undergo endless periods than others, it is not proven what is exactly happening in this stage. Moreover, it cannot be turn up whether there is passive acquisition of some of the elements of the target language spot undergoing the silent period. Consequently, an accurate account of the development of the language of the learner is difficult to provide.Another main argument concerning interlanguage is that of comparative fallacy. As Lakshmanan and Selinker (2001) state, criticizing the language learners speech utterances as ungrammatical without drawing first a comparison between the interlanguage speech utterances with the related speech utterances of the native speaker is not advisable since it leads to either underestimation and/or overestimation of the students linguistic performance. The interlanguage competences information should be obtained by examining the data of the interlanguage performance. Lakshmanan and Selinker (2001) suggest that in order to achieve this and not belittle or overvalue the students performance, it is necessary to compare consistently the interlanguage performance data with the native speakers performance.Taking everything into account, interlanguage is a guess that has been supported by a number of scholars because it helps educators know what their learners language is like. However, it is worth mentioning that it has some weaknesses that need to be addressed. As for teachers, it is not only important that they support this theory but they also should disclose its flaws as well so as not to misjudge our language learners performance on the language.References* Barron, A. (2003). Acquisition in Interlanguage Pragmatics Learning How To Do Things With Words In A Study overseas Context. Amsterdam/PhiladelphiaJohn Benjamins. * Ellis, R. (1997) Second Language Acquisition. New York Oxford University Press. * Fauziati, E. (2011) Interlanguage and Error Fossilization A Study Of Indonesian Students Learning English As A Foreign Language. (Vol. I No. 1, pp. 23-38). Indonesia Indonesian Journal of employ Linguistics. * Han, Z. (2002). Fossilization Five Central Issues. Toronto, Canada The Second Language Research gathering (SLRF), Teachers College, Columbia University. * Lakshmanan, U. and S elinker, L. (2001). Analysing Interlanguage How Do We Know What Learners Know? (Volume 17, Issue 4, Pages 393-420). gray Illinois University at Carbondale and Birkbeck College, University of London Second Language Research. * Taylor, B. (1975) Adult Language Learning Strategies and Their Pedagogical Implications. (Vol. 9. No. 4, pp. 391-399). USA TESOL Quarterly.