Interlanguage

Abstract

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 fi rst research studies in the new fi eld of second language acquisition. It continues, in modifi ed form, to provide a useful general framework for research in that fi eld. Here we will summarize the original formulation of the hypothesis in 1972, and then review subsequent modifi cations and expansions of the hypothesis.The most fundamental claim of the interlanguage hypothesis is that the language produced 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 pragmatics. The interlanguage system is fundamentally autonomous and patterned.

Overt and covert contrast in L2 phonology

“…The second implication of our findings that we wish to discuss is the fact that, if the ILH is defensible, we should expect to find learners with systems that have covert contrasts. The ILH makes the claim that all L2 learners internalize a system that enables them to speak and understand utterances in the TL, and that this system can be independent of both the learner’s NL and the TL (Gass, Behney & Plonsky, 2013; Tarone, (2006). An IL system with a covert contrast is independent of both the NL and TL in that it is not NL-like, because the NL lacks the contrast, and it is not TL like, because the contrast is implemented in a way that is not perceived by native speakers of the TL.…”

Myths and Misconceptions About Nonnative English Speakers in the TESOL (NNEST) Movement

“…The sphere of influence of the idealized native speaker‐hearer notion transcended theoretical linguistics and penetrated into mainstream SLA research through Selinker's () concepts of interlanguage (IL) and fossilization , both of which propagated the native speaker as the benchmark (see Kato, n.d.; Llurda, ; Mahboob, ). Selinker defined IL as the systematic and structurally intermediate knowledge or state between a learner's first language (L1) and second language (L2), yet which is independent of both the learner's L1 and L2 (Selinker, ; Tarone, ). Fossilization, on the other hand, is defined as “the real phenomenon of the permanent non‐learning of TL [target language] structures, of the cessation of IL learning (in most cases) far from expected TL norms” (Selinker, , p. 225).…”

Re‐engaging the interface debate: strong, weak, none, or all?

“…That is, once it occurs, fossilization putatively affects the entire interlanguage system (see, e.g. Bley‐Vroman ; Tarone ). Theoretical and empirical research in subsequent years has, however, resulted in a more nuanced view: Fossilization is local rather than global – affecting only subsystems of interlanguage – and selective – differentially affecting individual learners and their interlanguage subsystems (Han ; Han and Odlin ; MacWhinney ; Lardiere ).…”