Interlanguage

Interlanguage (IL); a term introduced by Selinker(1972), means the intermediate states or interim grammars that are portrayed by learner's language on its way to the achievement of the mastery of the target language, according to Troike(2006:41).IL is a dynamic phenomenon which can be illustrated with a continuum of which one end is L1 and the other end is L2. The learner constantly moves forward the interlanguage continuum of which the destination is the native like mastery of the target language, unless stopped by fossilization. Fossilization means the learner will not achieve the total mastery of L2, but will stop somewhere in the middle with her/his language still affected by errors. However, the successful learner constantly moves along the IL continuum and it can be called the development in the IL. This development could be accelerated or decelerated due to a myriad of reasons. Thus, different aspects of the learning process help the development of IL. Comprehension is one such aspect. The notion of comprehensible input as the primary and sole factor contributing to language acquisition was theoretically put forward by Krashen, via his Input Hypothesis. It was one of the five hypotheses presented by Krashen, pertaining to language acquisition. According to Krashen(1982), one acquires language only in one way- by exposure to comprehensible input. Input needs to comprise form and structures slightly beyond the learner's current level of competence for both comprehension and acquisition to take place. Krashen further exemplifies this with the formula, "i+1" where "i" is leaner's current level of competence and"1" the comprehensible input the learner is exposed to according to Lightbown ,P.M and Spada, N.(1999:39). Nonetheless,Krashen failed to corroborate his Input Hypothesis by means of empirical studies. Although he admitted that some people did not exhibit a satisfactory level of proficiency in spite of being exposed to extensive comprehensible input, he remained faithful to the ideals of his hypothesis. He further justified that such lack of competence is explicable by affective filter hypothesis; yet another hypothesis proposed by him. Krashen's Comprehensible Input Hypothesis further failed to define how to determine level "i" and "i+1". In addition, it said that comprehensible input is available when acquisition takes place and that the acquisition takes place when comprehensible input is available. Absence of a proper definition of the comprehensible input is yet another drawback in his hypothesis. Krashen's own claim cited below which tells that comprehensible input is the only way of second language acquisition, seems arbitrary. "If input is understood, and there is enough of it, the necessary grammar is automatically provided. The language teacher need not attempt deliberately to teach the next structure along the natural order- it will be provided in the right quantities and automatically reviewed if the structure receives a sufficient amount of comprehensible input Krashen(1985:2). The inexplicable aspects of Krashen's Input Hypothesis paved the way to studies on the role played by interaction and output in the L2 learning process .Interaction itself, by negotiating meaning with the help of modification strategies makes input comprehensible. Output, what the leaner produces in SLA in speech, in sign or writing,will show how much input has been made intake(Intake is input which is attended to) . Thus, the emergence of Input, Interaction and Output Models of language acquisition and Long's Interactional Hypothesis(1983,1996) showed much emphasis on the vitality of the role played by input, interaction and output in the developmental process of the IL. This hypothesis has the claim that conversational interaction is one way in which language learning takes place.[ Gass(2002:173)]. Another definition of the Interactional Hypothesis is the claim that modifications and collaborative efforts which take place in social interaction facilitate SLA because they contribute to the accessibility of input for mental processing, according to Troike(2006:190). Further Long says that" Negotiation for meaning and especially negotiation work that triggers international adjustments by the NS(Native Speaker) or more competent interlocutor, facilitates acquisition because it connects input, internal learner capacities, particularly selective attention, and output in productive ways"(1996 cited in Troike,2006,111). According to Long's Interactional Hypothesis,(1983, 1996), although comprehension is essential for language acquisition, an equally important role is played by interaction, since it is both comprehension and interaction which make the input comprehensible. Further, Sociocultural(S-C) Theory of Vygotsky(1962,1978) is based on the view that interaction taking place in a social setting is a key factor in SLA. According to this theory, interaction between learners and experts largely contributes to the process of SLA. This theory posits that interaction contributing to SLA could be both interpersonal of intrapersonal( trying to decode and encode language via reasoning out with one's one mind). Theoretical background of the importance of output includes the Output Hypothesis of Swain (1985, 1995). According to Swain, there are three functions of output, which are mainly noticing function, hypothesis testing function, and metalinguistic function. In view of that, output is not an end point but something that tests the absorption of the intake and output enables the learner test her/his hypotheses by means of utterances etc. One important aspect of output according to linguists is "noticing the gap". Noticing the gap means the discovery of a discrepancy by the learner between what the learner is able to produce as language output, and what actually is meant to be produced by the learner in a particular context. This process of noticing the gap was first represented by Schmidt (1990,1994,2001) by noticing hypothesis.. Thus a noticed gap could be bridged by a learner by means of modification strategies, which will be discussed in detail later in this paper. Metalinguistic function of output is when learners replicate their knowledge of language and this will enable them to control and internalize their linguistic knowledge. Formal input and output studies are done to assess what learners knew before versus what they knew afterwards, by means of pre and post tests.[ Lier(1998:18)]. The present writer's experience as a teacher of English as a second language comprises adequate examples which illustrate that comprehension alone is not sufficient for language continua in SLA. Often when students are exposed to comprehensible input via listening without pre-listening, post-listening or while-listening activities they hardly gather the meaning of what is being spoken in spite of being continuously exposed to extensive input. On the other hand when the students are exposed to the same input supported by pre-listening, while listening and post listening activities coupled with ample opportunities to negotiate the meaning and fill the noticing gaps, the students exhibit a significant level of competence even without being extensively exposed to language input. Another example of inadequacy of comprehensible input alone for SLA is the complaint made by students themselves that they do not comprehend certain subjects taught in the medium of English such as Physics and Chemistry because they do not understand how to decipher the syntactic structure of language used to explain the subject. Interaction is hardly possible for them because lectures are mass lectures held in traditional lecturer centered theatres and even when clarification is offered, it will be mostly focused on the subject and not on linguistic features. Thus, although the undergraduates of the present learner have access to comprehensible input via lectures conducted in English medium very frequently, that seldom helps them move forward along the language continuum of IL,since there is only occasional opportunity to negotiate the meaning notice comprehension gaps. Importance of interaction to decipher the meaning in IL development, has been discussed by many linguists and Corder(1981:89) explains it as follows. "One of the motivations for developing the interlanguage must be that the speaker finds his strategies of communication inadequate for his communicative needs " Negotiation of meaning is based on different types of modification strategies. Each type of modification strategy which is discussed in this paper has been exemplified with a transcription comprising the present writer's encounters with her students as a SLA teacher. Prior to the discussion of interactional modifications, it is important to discuss how input too can be modified to facilitate the SLA as well as use of interactional modification strategies. Language addressed by L1 speakers or more competent interlocutors to L2 learners, can be modified in a myriad of ways. This modified input is known as foreigner talk or teacher talk and according to Long(1996) it comprises the following characteristics. It consists of a simple vocabulary with high frequency words or phrases, has long pauses, displays a slow rate of speech, words are carefully articulated, volume is loud, key words are stressed, simple grammatical structures are used, presents the topic at the beginning and then a comment on it, exhibits more syntactic regularity and full forms of words (not contractions) are used Troike(2006:106)].Input in speech as well as in texts could be modified this way. Given below are some examples of recorded utterances made by the present writer as a second language teacher in order to modify speech. L2 Teacher : Small talk is … making a friendly conversation with someone about general things.. (Topicalization). L2 Teacher : Go in time, you catch the bus..(If you go in time you will catch the bus) Go late; if the bus is at 10, you go at 10.30, then no bus. You miss the bus( If you do not go in time you will miss the bus)- (Simplified grammatical structures). Discussing the nature of interactional modifications includes emphasis on modification strategies such as repetition, paraphrase, expansion and elaboration, sentence completion, frame for substitution, vertical construction, comprehension check and request for clarification, confirmation checks, or- choice and focusing on the topic. The following examples are recorded utterances made by the present writer as a L2 teacher. Repetition is an effective interactional modification strategy which gives the learner time to process the message as well as an opportunity to confirm or correct perception. L2 teacher : Work on the questions individually Student : How' L2 teacher : Work individually on these questions Paraphrasing helps learner understand language with her existing language competence. It further helps the improvement of the learner's vocabulary. L2 teacher : We are going to make impromptu speeches today Student : What is that' L2 teacher : Unplanned speeches… without preparation Expansion and elaboration allow the learner to listen to an utterance which, due to her level of IL she is not capable of producing at the time of speaking. It gives her an idea as to what she should acquire. L2 teacher : Yes' (Pointing to an image of a picture) Student : sorrowful L2 teacher : Yes, The lady looks sorrowful or she has a sorrowful facial expression. Sentence completion provides the learner with possible alternatives of syntactic and semantic forms that could be used in a particular context. L2 teacher : An atheist is someone who… Yes Priyanka' Student A : don’t worship L2 teacher : ok... Doesn't worship yes... Onali' Student B : An atheist is someone who hasn't a religion. Frame for substitution also helps learner to analyze alternative approaches to a sentence and also construct sentences with little existing knowledge. L2 teacher : He hardly works Student A : He hardly studies books. Vertical construction is a notion associated with scaffolding which means pooling knowledge to emerge with meaningful utterances. This best happens in peer learning. Student A : (In mother tongue) how do you say look like' Student B : (In English) Similar Student C : Can you say "Twins are similar" It doesn't sound alright (In mother tongue) Student B : I remember! Resemble. It's resemble Student A : Fine. Usually twins are resembling Student B : Without "ing" Usually twins resemble Student C : It is two way (In mother tongue) They like each other Student A :Fine. Usually twins resemble each other. Ok Confirmation checks of the learner are like her own mini-needs analyses where the teacher is told specific sections or segments of sentences which require attention Student A: Everyday she is going there L2 teacher: Is going' Offering the "or-choice" is a strategy that enables the student to answer questions by using the correct choice out of two. L2 teacher : And how was that dream' Student A : That means' L2 teacher : Did you have a sweet dream or a bad dream; a nightmare' Clarifications requests give students the opportunity to gather more information until the comprehension takes place. L2 teacher :Chithra had no siblings Student A : Siblings meaning' L2 teacher : No brothers no sisters, only yourself.. An only child Recast is a subtle strategy which can be used to indirectly correct an utterance, without humiliating the student. L2 teacher : Yes, Peshika' Student A : There are more students in the class L2 teacher : There are many students in the class Comprehension Check This strategy is often used by L2 teachers to check whether their students have understood what is being taught. L2 teacher : State verbs describe a condition, a state, not an action, do you follow me' These modification strategies help on the spot as well as delayed learning of the learners and help in preventing or filling information gaps in communication. In addition selection of the topics that the students are familiar with, switching topics whenever necessary could also be called modification strategies. It has been observed in SLA classrooms, that it is these modification strategies which make the teaching- learning process an active and a two-way one. As a SLA teacher, the present writer has often observed that something which barred the students' achievement of a satisfactory level of competence was the lack of opportunity to produce language in form of output. The first year Arts students of the university taught by the present writer, have only three hours of learning time per week and since most of the other subjects are taught in their mother tongue the mentioned three hours are the only period in which they are required to produce English. Thus, when they are exposed to vocabulary and different grammatical structures, they use them only once in the classroom and tend to forget. For example, a class comprising 34 students reading for their B.A., with students who had thoroughly learnt applications of tenses, failed to generate correct utterances in simple present tense after one month, although they could remember rules behind those applications. However, Marketing Students of the first year who were taught the same contents for the same amount of time, were better at remembering and correctly using what they had been taught, which is hypothetically due to the fact that they were required to use and produce language at least six hours per day. Feedback from students at the end of first semester revealed that the best thing they liked in English lectures was the discussion and correction of their own mistakes on the board. Thus, it could be assumed that successful SLA happens when input, interaction and output are in equilibrium. References Gass,S.(2002)'An Interationist perspective on second language acquisition ' In Kaplan, R.(ed) The Oxford Handbook of Applied Linguistics Oxford: Oxford University Press Troike, M, S.(2006)Introducing Second Language Acquisition Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Lightbown, P,M. and Spada, N.(1999) How Languages are Learned (2nd edition) Oxford : Oxford University Press Lier,L,V.(1988) The Classroom and the Language Learner New York : Longman Corder, S,P.(1982) Error Analysis and Interlanguage Oxford:Oxford University Press O' Malley , J,M. and Chamot, A,U.(1990) Learning Strategies in Second Language Acquisition Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Comprehensible input. Retrieved February 18, 2010 from Wikipedia ,the free encyclopedia :http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/comprehensible_output