Interlanguage and the natural route of development   ellis ch. 3
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5

Interlanguage and the natural route of development ellis ch. 3






Total Views
Views on SlideShare
Embed Views



0 Embeds 0

No embeds



Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Interlanguage and the natural route of development   ellis ch. 3 Interlanguage and the natural route of development ellis ch. 3 Presentation Transcript

  • PresentationInterlanguage and The ‘Natural’Route of Development
  • IntroductionThe goal of this chapter to examine the claims thatsecond language (L2) learners acquire knowledge of aL2 in a fixed order (in stark contrast to behavioristaccounts of SLA). This emphasized the importance ofenvironmental factors and first language (L1)interference. Interlanguage was the theorical constructwhich underlay the attempts of SLA researchers toidentify the stages of development through which L2learners pass on their way to L2 proficiency.
  • Mentalist Account of First Language AcquisitionAccording to mentalist theory, L1 acquisition was the product of an„Acquisition Device (AD)‟ by which means the child related a set ofUniversal Grammatical Rules to the surface structure of the language hewas learning.Mentalist view of L1 acquisition posited the following:•Language is a human-specific faculty•Language exist as independent faculty in human mind•The primary determinant of L1 acquisition is the child‟s AD, which isgenetically endowed and provides the child with a set of principles aboutgrammar•The AD atrophies with age•The process of acquisition consists of hypothesis testing, by whichmeans the grammar of the learner‟s mother tongue is related to theprinciples of „Universal Grammar (UG)”
  • InterlanguageThe term interlanguge was first used by Selinker (1972).Interlanguage refer to the structure system which the learner at any givenstage in his development and it also refer to the series of interlockingsystems which form what Corder (1967) called the learner‟s built-insyllabus (i.e. the interlanguage continuum).Interlanguage focused on its three principle features, all of whichwere raised by Selinker in one way or another. They are listed as follows:• Language-learner language is permeable• Language-learner language is dynamic• Language-learner language is systematic
  • Error AnalysisThe goals of traditional Error Analysis were pedagogic-errorsprovided information which could be used to sequence items for teachingor to device remedial lessons.The procedure for Error Analysis is spell out in Corder (1974). It is asfollows:•A corpus of language is selected. This involve deciding on the size ofsample, the medium to be sampled, and the homogeneity of the sample (with regard to the learner‟s age, L1 background, stage of development)•The errors in corpus are identified. Distinguish lapses from errors•The errors are classified. This involves assigning a grammaticaldescription to each error.•The errors are explained. In this stage of the procedure an attempt ismade to identify the psycholinguistic cause of errors.•The errors are evaluated. This stage involves assessing the seriousnessof error in order to take principled teaching decisions.
  • Empirical evidence for the interlanguage hypothesis•Restructuring continuum : the learner is seen as gradually replacingfeatures of his mother tongue as he acquires features of the targetlanguage.•Recreation continuum : the learner is seen as slowly creating the rulesystem of the target language in a manner very similar to the child‟sacquisition of his first language.Cross-sectional researchThe morpheme studies were carried out to investigate the order ofacquisition of a range of grammatical functions in the speech of L2learners.
  • Longitudinal studiesLongitudinal studies have tried to account for the gradual growthof competence in terms of the strategies used by a learner at differentdevelopment points.NegationSome expert had researched about the development of negativesin using L2 are (Raven 1968; Milon 1974; Cazden et al. 1975; Wode1967 and 1980a; Adams 1978; Butterworth and Hatch 1978).At the first time, the learners combine the use of negation by adoptingtheir L1 form. For examples:“No very good”“No you playing here”
  • After going through several developments, their known the usingof “do + not”. For examples:“Mariana not coming today”“I no can swim”“I don‟t see nothing mop”The next step the negatives attachment to modal verbs, it is goingbetter although still in simple form, for example:“I can‟t play this one”“I won‟t go”In the final stage of negation the target language rule is reached.It became completely correct. They began use the variety of tenses, forexample:“He doesn‟t know anything”“I didn‟t said it”“She didn‟t believe me”
  • InterrogationSome expert who studied for the description of interrogation areRaven (1974), Cazden et al. (1975), Gillis and Weber (1976), Wode(1978), Shapira (1978), Adams (1978) and Butterworth and Hatch(1978).The first produce are intonation questions with declarative wordorder but spoken with a rising intonation. For example:“I am colouring?”“Sir plays football today?”“I writing on this book?”“What‟s this?”Then the development becomes the appearance of productiveWh-questions but the auxiliary verb is often omitted. For examples:“What you are doing?”“What „tub‟mean?”“What the time?”
  • The next improvements, inversion occurs in yes/no questions and inWh-questions. Inversion with „be‟ tends to occur before inversion with„do‟. For examples:“Are you a nurse?”“Where is the girl?”“Do you work in the television?”“What is she‟s doing here?”At the last developments, they have a subject-verb inversion, as inordinary Wh-question:“I tell you what did happen.”“I don‟t know where do you live.”And later the learner able to differentiate the word order of ordinaryand embedded Wh-question. For example:“I don‟t know what he had.”
  • Relatives ClausesRelative clauses used to modify the object of a sentence wereacquired first. For examples:“And she said all the bad things that he do.”“Joshua‟s a boy who is silly.”Later, relative clauses modifying the subject of a sentence, itappears like:“But the one you gonna go, it don‟t have ice.”“The boys who doesn‟t have anybody to live, they take care of the dogs.”
  • The L2 = L1 HypothesisCazden‟s (1972) summary of the order of development forinterogatives in L1 acquisition is strikingly similar to that in SLA.The main stages Cazden identifies :•One word utterances are used as questions.•Intonation questions appear on a regular basis and there are some Wh-questions learnt as ready-made chunks.•Intonation questions become more complicated, and productive Wh-questions without inversion occur.•Inversion involving auxilary verbs occur in yes/no questions, but in Wh-questions.•Inversion occurs in Wh-question.•Embedded Wh-questions develop.
  • Methodological problems•Error AnalysisThe procedure for error analysis was elaborated by Corder (1974) ascomprising five stages:1) selection of a corpus of language2) identification of errors in the corpus3) classification of the errors identified4) explanation of the psycholinguistic causes of the errors5) evaluation (error gravity ranking) of the errors• Morpheme studies• Longitudinal studies• The focus on grammar• Origins of interlanguage• Necglect of external factors
  • Summary and conclusionThe common issues which concern in interlanguage is the learnerdifficult to understand language structured of L2 because it different withtheir L1. Interlanguage refers to the structured system which the learnersconstruct any given stages in his development. So there are many stepsof development passed by the learners in comprehending the structuredform in L2.As a result of theoretical attacks on the behaviourist view oflanguage acquisition as habit-formation,it was hypothesized that L1acquisition was the product of an “acquisition device” by which meansthe child related a set of universal gramatical rules to the surfacestructure of the language he eas learning. Interlanguage theory bothgenerated and fed off empirical research into SLA.