ENG 3246

Introduction to Second Language Acquisition

Mid Semester Project

Shirantha Dissanayaka

02/BA/11924

A11924

(2338 words)
Interlanguage

Thousands of millions of people are engaged in the process of learning a second or a third language. The possible reasons could include migration, academic purpose or as a new experience. This language learner's target is to achieve a high language proficiency in their target language. However they are not gaining the language proficiency overnight. Depending on the person it would take months or even years. Not all the learners gain the expected target language proficiency level. Some people give up, some people stop in midst of classes while some are gaining the necessary language proficiency. During the meantime of starting the learning of a new language to finishing learning it (with reaching the target language proficiency) language learners produce target language output. Such output could be called as interlanguage. Abbreviated with the shortened form IL, interlanguage has become a new interest in the linguistic studies. A more formal definition to interlanguage could be taken from Encarta Dictionary "intermediary form of a language: a form of language produced by learners of a second or foreign language, combining features of two or more languages" (Microsoft® Encarta® 2006). Before the exploration of interlanguage errors of second language learners was seen with a negative perspective. With developments in error analysis IL errors were considered to be a constructive force. Through the analysis of errors the linguists were able to make certain findings.

"The value of error-making in language learning was consequently reassessed, with a move away from seeing error as a purely negative phenomenon. Error analysis became a valuable tool in the classroom for teachers and researchers. Various taxonomies were devised to account for certain types of error (e.g. Dulay and Burt 1974). It was suggested that spoken and written texts produced different kinds of errors, that there were differences between grammatical and lexical errors, that it was possible to construct a gradation of serious and less serious errors."

(Powell Geraint, P4)
In selection of my data source I devised a novel approach. Instead of collecting new data from an alien source I used my own diary entries as the data for analysis. Extracts from diary entries of years 1999, 2001 and 2001 were selected for this purpose. I selected diary entries as my data source due to several advantages in using it. The diary entries are written without any interference or influence. The informant wrote these entries as a part of a spontaneous exercise, not as a part of a linguistic study or evaluation. Thus we could assume that this data tend to be more genuine and natural than the artificial data produced just for the sake of a study. They are free and spontaneous writing of the writer. On the other hand the diary entries are extracted from different time periods of the life of the originator. Thus it's justifiable to state that the data represents various points of the interlanguage continuum of the data source. Thus I will be having the opportunity of investigating the developmental errors based on the data samples of a broad time scale. The collected data have following attributes.

During the time of data production the informant studied at Royal College, Colombo. The school was a bi-lingual one. However Sinhala (L1) was the dominant language in the school. English was rarely used as a medium of instruction. The home was also a sinhala speaking environment. Thus we could state that the informant has limited exposure to L2. However from year 2000 onwards the exposure to target language increased rapidly with the selection of English literature as an A/L subject and selection to the University of Colombo. I selected the additional data source class room essay in order to compare the errors of a controlled environment (monitored environment) with diary entries which could be considered to be free writing.

The error analysis of the data revealed errors belonging to several categories. According to the frequency of occurrence these errors could be listed under the following categories.

1. Spelling Errors

2. Syntactic errors

3. Grammatical errors

4. Vocabulary / usage errors

On a second language acquisition perspective we could categorize the errors under following sub categories.

1. Free variation

2. Systematic variation

3. L1 interference

4. Developmental errors.

It should be noted that these classifications might overlap. Such overlapping would be dealt with a case by case basis.

First I decided to analyze the spelling errors of the informant. In most cases his spelling errors contained influence of L1. As a strategy of memorizing target language spelling he has used the phonetic system of Sinhala. Let's analyze this assumption through sample data.
•Amma went to a funaral (5th April 1999)

•but Tamil teeher came (6th April 1999)

•Rainy wether (8th April 1999)

•Did the exel tute (21st April 1999)

•One of the tuff decisions (3rd February 2001)
One could argue that these errors demonstrate a systematic, rule governed variation similar to the findings of Selinker (1969). Let's try to develop a rule for the context of above data. We could assume that the writer used the L1 phonetic system for memorizing the spelling of L2. Could this rule be considered universal in the data of the informant?The following data could be treated as exceptions to the above rule.
•Missed the computor lessons because of the power failiour (6th April 1999)

•;went to the charter of polgasowita lions cloub

•Watched oshin and knight wrider
In these words the writer has not obeyed the L1 phonetics rule we have constructed. For instance instead of the word 'rider' which could be written as in its sinhala pronunciation. The informant has either forgotten or not applied the rule he developed in the previous instance. Therefore we can assume that there is free variation in the spelling of L2. However I was able to find a single exception which goes against this rule. It's related to the word 'computor'. In 1999 data it shows a systematic variation.

E.g.:
• wrote a computor program(4th April 1999)

•in the evening went to the computor class (25th April 1999)
It's obvious that there is predictability in the spelling of the word 'computor' used by the informant. We know that he would always use the 'o' instead of 'e'. However the data of 2001 shows a different picture.
•Evening went to Shamu's teachers place and assembled the computer (23rd January 2001)

•I went to campus straight away to the computer center (8th January 2004)
The trend observed in this data segments could be treated as a developmental sequence. In the usage of the word 'computer'. In another words a 'trickling' effect has been taken place. According to Hubner trickling could be defined as "the revision or neutralization of an erroneous hypothesis". (Freeman and Long, p83) The available data is not sufficient to judge whether the change is gradual or sudden due to the absence of the data in the year 2001.

Usage of the past tense is another area where many errors were recorded. Since completed tasks are recorded in diaries using past tense, the past tense was frequently used throughout the data. Most of the errors in this category were similar to the data of experiments conducted by Ellis. The Portuguese boy in that experiment produced free variation within the same linguistic context and same purpose. Let's analyze the data produced within the day of 2nd Friday 1999. In first sentence he uses past tense correctly. In second and third sentences he does not comply with the rules governing past tense. However in the fourth and fifth sentences he successfully uses the rules of irregular and regular verbs. Thus we could note that there is free variation in the usage of past tense. However this trend has vanished in 2001 and 2001 data. This invites us to the come to the conclusion that data of 1999 reflects a developmental stage of the usage of past tense.

Another major error category is the grammatical and syntactical errors. The errors include past tense negation, usage of articles and pluralization. The data below could be used to justify my claim.
•Waited for english teacher but he didn't come (2nd April 1999)

•Elglish master doesn't came (6th April 1999)
This variation suggests that the leaner did not have a clear understanding regarding the rules behind the grammatical function discussed above. I suspect that informant has not acquired particular rules properly. Another example from 2004 data
•Rish and Ulfath had go to home again (6th January 2004)

• Thanuja and Surangi was next to me (8th January 2004)
However it could be argued that the performer has not used his monitor in this sort of a personal and intimate writing which is not naturally tested or evaluated. In simple terms even though the learner knows the rule, he is not thinking about the correctness of the information. Technically speaking I assume that only two conditions out of the 3 requirements of the monitor were fulfilled in this case. Usually these diary entries are written at the end of the day. This fulfills the first condition – the performer has enough time. It's doubtful whether the informant is thinking of the accuracy of what he is writing, because the accuracy of language would not be rewarded in a task like diary writing. The same data proves that he is aware of the questionable rules such as regular past and irregular past tense.

In order to check whether the use of monitor has any impact on the errors. For this purpose I use an essay written by the same source in a class room evaluation where he is rewarded for not making errors. It's significant that despite the assumed use of monitor in the classroom essay it also reflects the common error patterns of the diary entries. Some finding are listed below.

Capitalization problems were found in both data sets.

E.g.:
•Went to galle Road and came home (22nd April 1999)

•Met sumana Aunty and roy (28th April 1999)

•The poem garden of love written by william blake (poetry classroom test)
Mistakes related to articles are observed in both types of writing

E.g.:
•I believe that the poet has a underlying message to the corrupt clergy (Poetry classroom test)

•Returned home by crowded busses (28th April 1999)
Similarly incorrect usage of prepositions is found in both monitored and non monitored data.

E.g.:
The contemporary England we could interpret this to the changes of peoples lives (Poetry classroom test)

•Called to deshan (19th April 1999)

•Helped to parents (20th April 1999)
Based on these data I suggest that writer has not learned the rules governing the use of preposition 'to'.

The L1 interference in syntax and grammar is notably low in the given data. I assume that the particular informant has moved away from the native language to the target language in the interlanguage continuum. However it's significant that influence of L1 has not totally faded away. Note the following data extracts.
1. Stayed the morning at home (25th April 1999)

2. At 11.00 AM went to the computer class (3rd May 1999)

3. What happyness for me (20th January 2001)

4. All guys joked him because he will get sold if they continue to meet at there(10th January 2001)
I assume that these erratic sentences were created due to the influence of the following L1 sentences

1. indig_sentence

2. indig_sentence

3. indig_sentence

4. indig_sentence

Finally I would like to analyze some of the developmental errors I have observed. According to my findings the writer has tried to apply the new he has acquired from different linguistic contexts in to day to day life. It has resulted in some errors which I consider to be developmental errors.

E.g.:
•our brute,vandal,nibbish,mad neighbour (11th April 1999)

•The cats and dogs rain (21st April 1999)
I can well remember how I learned the word 'vandal'. It was grasped from a comic book called Tin Tin. In that book Captain Haddock frequently uses the word 'vandal' when he is angry. I believe that the word was used in a wrong context disregarding the grammatical context (i.e.: without considering the grammatical category it's belonging to)

The usage of the idiom "cats and dogs rain" is also interesting. Even though the informant has learned the idiom he is not aware of the fact that idioms have to be used as they are. Instead of using it in the standard form the learner has altered its use.

In conclusion I would like to state that a large number of errors were falling to the category of free variation. A limited number of errors were systematic and predictable. However in an overall analysis of the data in relation to the timeline we could observe a development in the interlanguage used by the informant. The continuous progress towards the target language in the interlanguage continuum could be a result of the improved input and regular exposure to the English language.

This exercise was useful to me in two different ways. It has helped me to explore my own interlanguage development in relation to a timeline. On the other hand it has helped me to experience a practical application of SLA theories.

References:

1. Krashen, Stephen D. and Tracy D Tessel (1983) The Natural Approach, New Jersy: Prentice Hall

2. Larsen, Diane and Long, Michael H (1992) An Introduction to Second Language Acquisition research, London: Longman

3. Powel, Geraint (;) What is the Role of Transfer in Interlanguage ?, Adobe Acrobat Document,: www.ling.lancs.ac.uk/groups/crile/docs/crile33powell.pdf, Date Accessed: 10.10.2006

4. Encarta Electronic Dictionary: ©®1993-2005 Microsoft Corporation
