The Language Teacher
05 - 2000

Student Interlanguage and Classroom Practice

Wilma Luth

This article was collaboratively edited by the writer and TLT's Peer Support Group (PSG). Readers interested in participating in this exciting programme should contact the PSG Coordinator, Andy Barfield, at tlt_psg@jalt.org

In the field of second language acquisition (SLA), terminology and theories have come and gone. But one concept has retained its status in the field: the idea of the existence of an interlanguage. The term "interlanguage" (IL) originated from a description of pidginization in Hawaii and was used to describe the pidgin that was common to the group being studied. As defined by the Random House Webster's dictionary, a pidgin is "an auxiliary language that has developed from the need of speakers of two different languages to communicate and is primarily a simplified form of one of the languages, with a reduced vocabulary and grammatical structure." Now IL is more commonly used to describe what learners produce in between their native language (L1) and the target language (TL). This definition should not lead us to believe that IL is unique to the individual. Although many factors are unique to each student, IL is also a common or shared phenomenon. It can be seen as both what the learners produce, and also the path or continuum along which learners progress in their acquisition of the TL.

The appeal of IL is in its descriptive power, as well as its practical nature. My understanding of the issues in SLA has been aided considerably when they were related to the IL continuum. These issues include such questions as: why do learners progress at different rates? Why do they make errors? Why do they make the same ones again and again? Looking at these questions in light of the IL continuum provides compelling answers. Learners make errors because they are actively testing their hypotheses and working out the rules of the TL, not necessarily because they don't understand. Perhaps they repeat errors when they are in a period of backsliding, or because they've been taught structures that are too difficult for them based on where they are on the IL continuum. Learners progress at varying rates because there are a whole host of social, psychological, and cognitive factors that affect their learning. These issues have very practical implications for the classroom.

Nemser describes three characteristics of IL commonly accepted in the field of SLA:

Our assumption is three-fold: (1) Learner's speech at a given time is the patterned product of a linguistic system (La), distinct from LS and LT (the source and the target language) and internally structured. (2) La's at successive stages of learning form an evolving series the earlier occurring when a learner first attempts to use the LT, the most advanced at the closest approach to LT.... (3) In a given contact situation, the La's of learners at the same stage of proficiency roughly coincide with major variations ascribable to differences in learning experiences. (as quoted in Larsen-Freeman and Long, 1991, p.60)

In this article I will discuss some implications of using these characteristics of IL as a framework to guide our teaching and also investigate ways in which an awareness of IL can inform how we as teachers structure the learning environment, provide useful activities for our students, and maintain realistic expectations for ourselves. The ideas I share come out of my exploration of the practical applications of my learning in an SLA course in which the Larsen-Freeman and long text was used.

Characteristics of Interlanguage

IL is distinct from both the L1 and the TL, therefore the speech which learners produce is different from both the L1 and the TL. But this is not to say that there is no rhyme or reason in the language produced. On the contrary, it is quite ". . . systematic, i.e., rule-governed, and common to all learners, any difference being explicable by differences in their learning experience" (Larsen-Freeman & Long, 1991, p. 60). This can be a very freeing idea for both teachers and students. If what our students are producing is an IL that is governed by rules, then we don't have to see every error they make as wrong. If it's a consistently-made error then perhaps it adheres to their IL rule. Asking students to identify their errors and explain why they made them can help us to identify the IL rule being followed and then point out how this differs from the corresponding rule in English. This technique seems to work quite well with students who have reached a certain level of competence and confidence in English and is also well-suited to writing classes.

The second characteristic of IL is that it evolves, from the very first utterance in the TL to the very advanced level of close approximation to the TL. This evolution is not direct, however, which is evident in the use of strategies such as "scouting & trailing" and backsliding. At times students scout ahead, trying out new forms. Yet even when they have figured out a form and have been able to use it successfully, they will at times revert, or trail back, and use the incorrect form once again. They might even backslide completely and seem to have forgotten material recently mastered. This could be due to fatigue or frustration and is a natural part of language learning. Learners can also get stuck at a certain spot along the IL continuum, perhaps because their linguistic or communicative needs are being met with the language they're able to produce, and thus lose motivation to continue. This linguistic fossilization can occur at any point along the IL path and if no new learning takes place, the learner will stay at that point or regress. Understanding this can, at the very least, inspire us to be patient with students who seem to be backsliding or doing more trailing than scouting. We can also use activities in class that will help students work through the areas with which they are having problems.

The third characteristic focuses on the common nature of IL in that some people believe the personal ILs of learners at the same stage of proficiency are generally quite similar, in both production and errors. This could be because of what has been described as the learner's built-in syllabus, the learner-generated sequence of what is to be learned. If this is true, it could go a long way in explaining why some students just do not understand something, no matter how many times we might explain or repeat it. Perhaps they are not yet ready to learn what we are teaching. Pre-assessing students and grouping them with others at the same level would be one useful way to avoid this problem. If students just do not understand a lesson on a certain day, it might be helpful to simply move along in the course plan and review the point when they seem ready.

Learners progress at varying rates because there are a whole host of social, psychological, and cognitive factors that affect their learning.

Other Implications of Interlanguage

What are some of the other practical implications of thinking of language learning as a journey along the IL path or continuum? One option would be to teach the next step in the IL, even if incorrect, instead of teaching the "perfect" TL form. Although intriguing, this way seems fraught with problems. How would the teacher decide what the next step is? Would this step be the same for all the learners in the class? Would it suit the analyzers and be less useful for those who prefer a more gestalt-like approach? Would it suit certain learning styles over others? This option would probably be confusing for students, although teachers might be unconsciously choosing it when they stress fluency over accuracy and accept "less than perfect" language from their students.

I believe I can identify a number of more useful techniques to help students keep moving along the IL path, while also providing them with the help and security they need. First of all, by enhancing the learning environment and making it very input-rich we can flood our students with examples of the TL and opportunities to use it. This is especially important in our context here in Japan. As EFL learners in Japan, our students have limited access to the authentic materials and input that are so readily available to ESL learners. By providing our students with access to English music, movies, magazines, books, etc., we improve the likelihood that we will facilitate their individual next steps regardless of their particular learning styles or positions on the IL continuum. A number of useful ways to do this are listed on pages 83-6 of Larsen-Freeman's Techniques and Principles in Language Teaching. These are presented as ways to apply the principles of Suggestopedia, an approach to teaching languages which advocates a rich, multi-sensory environment.

Secondly, we can also encourage our students to take risks, by setting up situations in which they can be successful and then pushing them a little further. One example would be to instruct students to ask their partners a certain number of follow-up questions after an initial conversation pattern has been practiced. We can help students develop their abilities to notice the gap between the TL and their IL by providing negative evidence, for example, by videotaping a class and discussing the errors we notice. Because of the nature of scouting & trailing, it's important to recycle and review the language being worked on. Students can identify the expressions and forms they need to remember, their personal "next steps" list, if they are periodically required to write review sheets. The potential for learning is deepened when students use these review sheets as scripts for a review cassette to which they regularly listen. These techniques can help to compensate for our students' differing aptitudes and motivation levels.

Thinking " interlingually" has helped me identify effective and realistic ways to support my students in their journey along the IL continuum.

Finally, as teachers it's important to remember that a lot of learning can take place before it shows up or becomes evident in our students' progress. We might be lucky enough to see the light of awareness in our students' eyes or we might be preparing them for their next teacher to inspire that light. Either way is valid. But I think that consistently implementing the elements described above in our teaching will enhance the conditions necessary to inspire those teachable moments. Corder writes that "efficient language teaching must work with, rather than against, natural processes, facilitate and expedite rather than impede learning." (as quoted in Larsen-Freeman & Long, 1991, p. 3). When what we do is connected to what the students are interested in and takes into account their progress on the IL path, then conditions are ripe for learning to take place.

Conclusion

In this article I have discussed some implications of Nemser's three characteristics of IL, that it is distinct from both the L1 and the TL, evolutionary by nature, and usually common to learners at the same level. I have also explored ways in which an awareness of IL can inform our structuring of the learning environment and help us provide useful activities for our students while also maintaining realistic expectations for ourselves.

The concept of IL has been key to framing my thinking about my own L2 acquisition as well as that of my students, because it transcends the narrow either/or nature of many theories. Thinking "interlingually" has helped me identify effective and realistic ways to support my students in their journey along the IL continuum. Language teaching that takes into account where students are on their own IL paths has the potential to transform the learning experience for both teachers and students.

The author wishes to thank Diane Larsen-Freeman and Lois Scott-Conley, as well as Wayne K. Johnson and Craig Sower of the Peer Support Group for their invaluable comments and suggestions on earlier drafts of this article.

References

Larsen-Freeman, D. (1986). Techniques and principles in language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Larsen-Freeman, D. and Long, M. H. (1991). An introduction to second language acquisition research. London: Longman.

Wilma Luth teaches at two universities and a junior college in Sapporo, and is a Masters candidate at the School for International Training.