Inter-language Studies

It was noted earlier that some theories explain learner errors as being a result of different factors throughout the process of learning a foreign language. Researchers claim that some errors result from first language interference, while others interpret errors as being due to the differences between two language systems. Still, there are further assumptions that consider language learning as having developed as a result of the mental knowledge of the second language and that view errors as simply a natural process of the development of learning that language. Moreover, Hamdan (1994) views

33

errors as an important and natural part of the learning process and states that they are likely to accrue in spite of different learning strategies or methods of instruction aimed at overcoming language errors. Furthermore, they happen despite learners‟ and teachers‟

greatest efforts. In fact, recent research has examined learners‟ linguistic competence and the production of errors and has, as a result, led to the construction of a new system, which differs from the first language and also from the target or second language. This hypothesis defines it as a new concept of second language acquisition called

“interlanguage”. The term interlanguage was first presented by Larry Selinker, who explains it as follows, “L2 learners construct a linguistic system that draws, in part, on the learners‟ L1 but it also different from it and also from the target language. In addition, Keshavarz (1994), identifies interlanguage as source of learners‟ errors:

“Interlingual errors result from the transfer of phonological, morphological, grammatical, lexico-semantic, and stylistic elements of the learner‟s mother tongue to the learning of the target language (cited in Shekhzadeh & Gheichi, 2011, p.160). A learner‟s interlanguage is, therefore, a unique linguistic system” (Ellis 1997, p. 33).

More importantly, Selinker (1974) argues that second language learning developed due to exposure to the target language as well as to the influence of the first language as a major process of developing second language learning. He also claims that language transfer is considered to be the first stage in constructing the learner‟s interlanguage.

The concept of the interlanguage has developed to the point where it involves very important hypotheses regarding the process of second language learning. Ellis (1997), Richards (1974), Gass and Schahter (1989), and Selinker (1974) assume that the learner invents new linguistic rules and constructs a system as a result of the production of the L2, which is referred to as unique mental grammar that appears to be error-produced.

Also, the production of the target language, such as its grammatical and phonological elements, are open to the influence of outside factors, namely the environment, and inside factors, namely the mental process. The errors result whether they are errors of commission, over-generalised, or transferred. In any event, they is still evidence of internal language processing. Thus, interlanguage interprets the learner‟s level of proficiency as transitional in terms of grammar. The learners change their language competence from time to time by adding or deleting rules, which results in an increase in their L2 knowledge and complexity. Ellis states that initially, learners may have very simple language competence and, over time, they attempt to add more complicated language functions to their speech, thereby resulting in errors. This transitional nature of

34

the interlanguage is considered to be a major sequence of second language acquisition.

Other views of interlanguage argue that learners construct different kinds of rules; they may invent other rules at any stage and level of their language development. When learners attempt to communicate, they use their knowledge of both L1 and L2, which results in errors and leads to the argued position that interlanguage is an aspect of performance rather than a competence. Moreover, what is interesting about the interlanguage hypothesis is that it explains different kinds of errors as being a result of different learning strategies employed by the learners, and addresses whether over-generalisation or transferred errors are still considered evidence of learning strategies.

Selinker(1974) suggests that only 5% of second language learners can develop the same mental language structure as native speakers. It is the case that most learners are likely to develop their language competence due to the correlation of different factors. Farech and Kasper illustrate the importance of the interlanguage concept in relation to language transfer by stating the following: “It has liberated the notion of transfer from its behaviourist bonds and preserved it as an important theoretical concept in second language acquisition” (1987, p. 111). In fact, the concept of interlanguage views a wide range of hypotheses in one linguistic term. It is, to some extent, a combination of both the contrastive analysis views and the role of the first language, and it represents this in a new term that emphasises the role played by both internal and external factors in second language acquisition. Additionally, it has opened the door for further explanation and advanced our understanding of how a second language is acquired.

Selinker notes that “there is no empirical evidence of why the native language should not act as a tool which the learner uses while attempting to discover the formal proprieties of the target language” (1987, p. 2). Despite the importance of the interlanguage concept in second language acquisition, Corder (1974) and Ellis (1997) argue that there remain some issues that cannot be resolved. These include the following: When does the input work for second language acquisition and when does it not? In which cases should the learners rely on L1 transfer and when do they over-generalise their language competence? Finally, what causes learners to restructure their interlanguage? These are some of the issues that need further explanation and more studies to reshape the value of previous theories in the field of foreign or second language acquisition. Methods and approaches had been provided in the literature review to overcome the phenomena of language transfer. The role of the communicative approach in overcoming the issue is examined by Littlewood (1984) who states that no

35

matter how errors are accrued by learners, as long as there are teachers who are able to control learners‟ exposure to the second language, provide them with opportunities to practise it, make them aware of the significant features and patterns of the new language, and provide a variety of feedback to ensure that the learning process is efficient, then learners will be successful. Therefore, I consider this issue an appropriate focus for my context, and for the further research that is necessary to attain more knowledge of the subject for the sake of my professional development and improved interpretation on the part of Saudi students who are seeking to master the English language.