INTERLANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT
A Written Report
In
Psycholinguistics
(EL 306)
Submitted by:
FREDERICK T. MUNDA
Submitted to
JENNIE M. BITO, PhD.
1|Page
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I.
Title Page
1
II.
Table of Contents
2
III.
Introduction
3
IV.
Interlanguage: An Illustration
3
V.
Interlanguage Definition
3
VI.
Interlanguage Development Meaning
4
VII.
Characteristics of Interlanguage
4
VIII.
The Four Stages of Interlanguage Development
6
IX.
Interlanguage Formation
8
X.
Effects of Interlanguage
13
XI.
Teacher’s Perspective
14
XII.
Report Summary
14
XIII.
References
16
2|Page
INTERLANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT
INTRODUCTION
Second-language learners may employ interlanguage in an attempt to bridge the
gaps in fluency of the second language. This report provides the definition of
interlanguage, an overview of interlanguage development, its characteristics, the factors
that influence its formation and development, the stages of interlanguage development,
and the effects of interlanguage over time.
One remarkable area of research into second language acquisition is the nature and
properties of the second language learner’s knowledge and use of the target language
grammar commonly known as interlanguage. The term “interlanguage” (IL) was first
coined by Selinker, L. which refers to the language system created by the foreign
language learner based on the linguistic input accessible to him. Selinker proposed
that a linguistic system (interlanguage, IL) underlies L2 learner’s language which he
produces in his attempt to communicate meaningfully in the target language. This
system as he further insinuated, has a structure different from the learner’s native and
the target languages and ought to be investigated to associate the psychological
processes influencing interlanguage over time.
INTERLANGUAGE: An Illustration
Imagine you are standing on a ledge. There's a huge gap, but you want to get to
the other side. You can't jump across. You can't walk around. You can't fly over. But, you
can build a bridge plank by plank. At first, you might be able to walk across carefully, but
as you add to it, one day it might be strong enough to drive a car across! Now imagine
your ledge is your native language and you are trying to conquer a second language:
the other ledge. In this scenario, your bridge will be called interlanguage.
INTERLANGUAGE: A Definition
The term interlanguage was first introduced into the literature by Selinker, in an
influential paper published in the International Review of Applied Linguistics in 1972,
although it was actually written in 1969 while he was on sabbatical leave at Edinburgh
University, working closely with Corder. Since then, various terms have been used
synonymously with interlanguage, although there are some subtle differences between
them: approximative systems, Nemser (1969); idiosyncratic dialects, Corder (1971);
learner language systems, Richards and Sampson (1973). Ali these descriptions have
one thing in common: the fact that second language learning is seen to be moving in the
3|Page
direction of the target language, with the learner constructing successive systems of
phonological, grammatical, and sem an tic usage ruIes.
In a discussion of the utterances students make when attempting to say the
sentences of a target language (TL), Selinker (1972: 35) states:
This set of utterances for most learners of a second language is not
identical to the hypothesized corresponding set of utterances which
would have been produced by the native speaker of the TL had he
attempted to express the same meaning as the learner. Since we
can observe that these two sets of utterances are not identical …
one would be completely justified in hypothesizing… the
….existence of a separate linguistic system… This linguistic system
we will call 'interlanguage' (IL)
Simply put, An IL is essentially an idiolect which preserves features of the
learner’s mother tongue, and is likely to overgeneralize L2 speaking rules. Hence, every
learner develops speech habits which are unique to them.
Interlanguage (IL) is a linguistic system used by second language learners.
Learners create this language when they attempt to communicate in the target
language. Interlanguage is affected by the learner's native language as they use their
native language knowledge to understand and organize the second language or to
compensate for existing competency gaps.
Interlanguage Development - refers to the process of acquiring and developing a
second language (L2) by a learner who already has a first language (L1). This process
involves the use of L1 as a resource to learn the L2, which leads to the development of
a third language or interlanguage.
CHARACTERISTICS
•
Interlanguage is dynamic and permeable.
It serves as a bridge between L1 and L2 when learners lack knowledge
and fine mastery of rules, but over time, learners progress. Selinker argues that
interlanguage is characterized by permeability, that is, the learner’ grammar is
susceptible to infiltration by his first language and the target language rules or
forms. He changes his grammar from time to time by deleting rules, adding rules,
and reconstructing the complete rules. The rules according to Al-khresheh are
viewed as mental grammar which create IL system. Song best describes
interlanguage as a system based on the best attempt of learners to provide order
4|Page
and structure to the linguistic stimuli surrounding them. Through a gradual
process of trial and error and hypothesis testing, the learner slowly succeeds in
establishing closer approximations to the system used by the native speakers of
the target language. Before this stage, the learner must first discover that his
output does not match the target language. He will never detect a mismatch
between his forms and the target language forms if the target forms are passed
through an L1 filter. Ellis declares that “L2 learner’s mental grammars are
perceived as dynamic and subject to rapid change”. The dynamism is
orchestrated by FL influence, stretching, and over-generation of the TL rules.
Song reports that the learner’s interlanguage does not uncoordinatedly and
suddenly change from one level to another; rather, it slowly revives the interim
system to adapt new hypothesis to the target language system. The process of
constant revision and extension of rules, as Song further postulates, is a feature
of the inherent instability of interlanguage and its built-in propensity for change.
Interlanguage incorporates deviant forms or errors associated with the learner’s
current linguistic level as he approaches and approximates a standard of the
target language
•
Interlanguage is systematic
Although different learners have different interlanguage, they all have
their own rules within their variations. There exists a certain degree of uniformity
in application of rules by L2 learners, that brings us to the second characteristic
of interlanguage which is, systematic. Song reports that in spite of the instability
of interlanguage, it is possible to identify the rule-based nature of the learner’s
interlanguage, that is, the learner follows predictable application of the rules of
the target language in his efforts to communicate meaning. Wang & Fan confirm
that the L2 learner bases their performance skills on the existing rule system of
the target language as much as the native speaker basis his competence skills
on his internalized knowledge of the L1 system.
•
Interlanguage is variable
Learner's performance is variable. Extensive research into the L2 learner’s
interlanguage provides strong evidence that variability is common in the
interlanguage grammar of all L2 learners. They may apply the same rule
differently in separate contexts or domains. Accuracy and fluency vary across
occasions as learners have alternative rules for the same function. Aside from
the systematicity of interlanguage, learners’ interlanguage grammars
exhibit high degrees of variability resulting from various ways mental systems
involved in the construction of interlanguage interact with different types of
linguistic input. L2 learners are exposed to explicit instruction and negative
feedback- linguistic input, in addition to naturally occurring sentences of the
5|Page
target language which engenders learned linguistic knowledge in them. Each
learner’s interlanguage presents alternative rules for performing the same
function. The unstable nature of IL system reflects the overlapping stages of
development as one variable rule is revised in favor of another. A typical example
of interlanguage variability where native speakers would not vary is revealed by
who examined the interlanguage of Igbo−English bilinguals who were given Igbo
passages to translate to English. Igbo−English bilinguals were found to use
attributive and absolute genitives in sentences whereas native speakers would
only use absolute genitives, egs, IL (this my brother) standard English (SE) (my
brother/this brother of mine). Chidi-Onwuta & Oluikpe [12] observed that Igbo
lacks absolute genitives, consequently, the Igbo–English bilingual appeals to
prior linguistic knowledge by using attributive genitives in place of absolute
genitives not found in Igbo and sometimes, superfluously uses absolute genitives
when need be. Their study reveals instances of cross-linguistic influence in L2
learners’ IL. It confirms records that learners of a new language employ a number
of strategies in approaching a new language; top in the list is the native language
of L2 learners.
THE FOUR STAGES OF INTERLANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT
Brown (1987: 175) presents four stages to describe learners’ efforts when it
comes to acquiring the target language system:
1. Random errors or pre-systematic stage
At this stage, the learner is hardly aware of the systematicity attached to the
second language system. Hence, the learner tends to experiment with the language and
produces errors at random. Random errors, a stage that Corder called presystematic,
in which the learner is only vaguely aware that there is some systematic
order to a particular class of items. The written utterance "The different city
is another one in the another two" surely comes out of a random error stage
in which the learner is making rather wild guesses at what to write.
Inconsistencies like "John cans sing," "John can to sing," and "John can
singing," all said by the same learner within a short period of time, might indicate
a stage of experimentation and inaccurate guessing.
2. Emergent stage
Emergent stage of learner language finds the learner growing
in consistency in linguistic production. The learner has begun to discern a
system and to internalize certain rules. These rules may not be correct by
target language standards, but they are nevertheless legitimate in the mind of
6|Page
the learner. This stage is characterized by some backsliding, in which the
learner seems to have grasped a rule or principle and then regresses to some
previous stage. This phenomenon of moving from a correct form to an incorrect
form and than back to correctness is referred to as U-shaped learning
(Gass & Selinker, 2001). In general the learner is still, at this stage, unable to
correct errors when they are pointed out by someone else. Avoidance of
structures and topics is typical.
Slowly but surely, the learner’s knowledge of the L2 increases. The learner is more
aware of the rules that create the whole second language system and is able to apply
them in a relatively successful manner. Nevertheless, the learner continues to make
errors and cannot correct them on his/her own. Typically, the learner is in his/her
comfort zone and avoids using certain structures. Finally, the phenomenon of
backsliding is likely to occur. Consider the following conversation between
a learner (L) and a native speaker (NS) of English:
L: I go New York.
NS: You're going to NewYork?
L: [doesn't understand] What?
NS: You will go to New York?
L: Yes.
NS: When?
L: 1972.
NS: Oh, you went to New York in 1972.
L: Yes, I go 1972.
According to Han (2004:102), backsliding is the “variational reappearance over
time of interlanguage features that appear to have been eradicated.”
3. Systematic stage
stage is a truly systematic stage in which the learner is now able to manifest more
consistency in producing the second language. While those rules that are stored in the
learner's brain are still not all well-formed, and some of them conform to the above
mentioned U-shaped processes, they are more internally self-consistent and, of course,
they more closely approximate the target language system. The most salient difference
between the second and third stage is the ability of learners to correct their errors when
they are pointed out-even very subtly-to them. Consider the English learner who
described a popular fishing-resort area.
L: Many fish are in the lake. These fish are serving in the
restaurants near the lake.
7|Page
NS: [laughing] The fish are serving?
L: [laughing] Oh, no, the fish are being served in the
restaurants!
Here, the learner shows greater consistency in producing the L2. Output approximates
TL norms, even though the rules are not all well-formed. Furthermore, the learner is
capable of self-correction when prompted to do so by a teacher.
4. Stabilization or post-systematic stage
Here the learner has relatively few errors and has mastered the system to the point that
fluency and intended meanings are not problematic. This fourth stage is characterized
by the learner's ability to self-correct. The system is complete enough that attention can
be paid to those few errors that occur and corrections be made without waiting for
feedback from someone else. At this point learners can stabilize too fast, allowing minor
errors to slip by undetected, and thus manifest fossilization of their language.
At this stage, the IL form is prone to stabilization. The learner produces few instances of
incorrect language, and is able to self-correct. Despite these positive traits, the learner’s
linguistic system is far from native speaker competence. Unfortunately, the stabilized
language is more likely to 'get stuck' rather than develop. In essence, the learning
process begins to resemble a 'plateau'.
INTERLANGUAGE FORMATION
There are five agreed-upon factors that are believed to shape how learners
create interlanguage: overgeneralization, learning strategies, language transfer, transfer
of training, and communication strategies.
1. Overgeneralization
Overgeneralization (Ellis, 2000) involves the use of existing L2 knowledge
by extending it to new IL forms. It happens when people apply a grammatical rule
across all members of a grammatical class without making the appropriate
exceptions. In fact, language overgeneralization always indicates the ignorance
of rule restrictions, including semantic restrictions of lexis or other linguistic items.
For instance, using the -ed suffix to indicate past tense for verbs like "go"
and "think." The reason for which overgeneralization is important in L2 acquisition
is that it leads to failure in detecting the errors for language learners. The
phenomenon always occurs unconsciously. Without timely instruction and
correction, the errors will stay for as long as it can do.
8|Page
Overgeneralization involves learners extending the application of a rule in
L2. They group similar items together and try to predict their behavior based on a
rule they already know. Using the same rule in new situations leads to errors: the
plural for ''deer'' becomes ''deers''; the past tense of ''go'' becomes ''goed.''
Richards J. defines over-generalization as “the use of previously available
strategies in new situations.” This process is widely observed in child language
acquisition, and it is termed a developmental process. At this level, the acquirer
or the L2 learner shows evidence of mastering a rule but does not take
cognizance of exceptions to the rule. For example, the learner knows the past
tense marker ‘ed’ is used to express past actions with verbs, without conscious
observance of regular and irregular verbs alike: washed, danced, *drinked,
*goed, *teached. Chidi-Onwuta & Oluikpe provide negative evidence of adult
Igbo−English bilinguals engaged in writing production who instanced overgeneralization in their IL:
Over-generalization is a deviation from the TL rules which may present in
form of addition of linguistic units or omission of required features.
Overgeneralization may result in simplification of the target language rules; in
that case, the L2 learner is seen reducing the linguistic burden in the TL. The
omission of the third person simple present tense marker‘s’ in (she eat rice often)
is a typical example of simplification of the TL rules in interlanguage.
Overgeneralization error reveals evidence of the learner’s progress in TL
development; it shows that the learner has learnt some general language rules
and waiting to master the exceptions. This claim, however, is contrary to Firth
MB. who earlier sees learners who over-generalize as those who have limited
exposure to the TL rules and create deviant structures. Firth further believes that
overgeneralization illustrates an attempt by the L2 learner to build up hypothesis
about the TL from their limited exposure to it, as such, the following utterances
can be found among L2 learners:
*I am not liking it
*she must goes to jim every day.
The review above confirms that L2 learners employ different strategies in
approaching the TL, top in the list is appeal to the native language which results
in cross-linguistic influence. Generalizations about cross-linguistic influence have
9|Page
been revisited with empirical studies and such studies are used to support the
claim of absence of cross-linguistic influence in second language acquisition. For
example, some groups of Igbo−English bilinguals were engaged in a study
carried out by Chidi-Onwuta G, Oluikpe B. where they were to apply pluralization
as a categorical feature of nouns in their writing and translation. The following
negative evidence were noted in their writing:
The negative evidence above does not reflect cross-linguistic influence.
From the perspective of contrastive analysis (CA), both the target language
(English) and the learners’ first language (Igbo) have the noun category.
Similarly, both languages have noun subcategories (± count and non-count
noun). Again, English and Igbo languages recognize the notion of pluralization
with minor differences in plural marking. Pluralization is marked morphologically
in English and characterized by exceptions while the same is post-nominally
marked in Igbo using numerals. When the noun is singular, the numeral “one” is
used pre-nominally to mark singularity. Since noun category and pluralization are
features found in both English and Igbo languages, the negative evidence above
could be explained to have risen as the Igbo-English bilingual attempts to
reinterpret the rules in the two languages by invoking the learning principle of
generalization. It is further interpreted that the general principle of generalization
as a learning process was at work rather than appealing to L1. Chidi-Onwuta &
Oluikpe study reveals all errors in the target language as unexplainable from
transfer and could not only be induced by cross-linguistic influence.
2. Learning Strategies of L2
Learning strategies consist of learners adopting different learning
approaches. Some incorrect learning strategies may result in stagnation in the
development of some aspect of L2, such asyntactic, lexical, or sociocultural. One
such example is the act of simplification, as in ''I am clean my room now'' instead
of ''I am cleaning my room now.''
When the L2 learners’ IL structures and rules are a result of their identifiable
approach to the TL, such approach becomes their strategy for second language
learning. Possible learning strategies that shape IL rules according to [23] include
hypothesis formation (simplification and inferencing) and hypothesis testing.
10 | P a g e
The developmental nature of interlanguage reveals that L2 learners go through a
process of making and testing hypotheses about the target language, a process
which leads to internalizing the rules. Successful hypotheses become mental
constructions that correspond to the rules of the TL while unsuccessful
hypotheses are revised and discarded. The implication of this claim is that L2
learners are located on an interlanguage (IL) continuum between their L1 and the
target language. Highly successful L2 learners attain commensurate level of
competence while less successful L2 learners become fossilized somewhere
along the IL continuum.
3. Language Transfer
Selinker (1972) believed that some language rules in the learner’s IL are
transferred from his/her L1. The errors in the use of L2 result mainly from L1, and
the difference between L1 and the L2 is the reason for the occurrence of errors.
The transfer of L1 can be positive or negative. Positive transfer refers to that the
similarities shared by the L1 and L2 help second language acquisition. Likewise,
negative transfer refers to the differences between L1 and L2 that interfere
second language acquisition. The negative transfer of L1 is what the behaviorists
believe to be proactive inhibition; that is to say, the influence of what has been
previously learned appears in the context of and interrupts what is learned
afterwards.
Language transfer involves learners using their knowledge of L1 to
understand or produce meaning in L2. If L1 and L2 are very different, errors are
likely to occur in L2, like ''I cats love.'' It is a formation theory that recognizes the
significant role prior experience plays in any learning act. On the one hand Cross
Linguistic Influence (CLI), which is used interchangeably with Language Transfer,
according to Odlin T., is “the influence resulting from similarities or differences
between the target language (TL) and any other language that has already been
previously (and perhaps imperfectly) acquired”. The second language learner
appeals to previous knowledge he has had with language to facilitate learning of
new experiences. The first language, according to Brown, is the obvious set of
prior experiences accessible to the L2 learner. Following Brown’s claim, transfer
is imperative in any language learning. (Chidi-Onwuta & Oluikpe) traced the
theory of transfer as being construed within the Behavioral framework as habits
generalized from one language to another. Behavioral psychologists claim that
transfer is evident in every second language learning and is subdivided into
positive and negative. When the first language is similar to the target language to
the extent that learning is facilitated by prior experience, positive transfer is in
place. Negative transfer, however, is observed when the influences of the first
11 | P a g e
language are inhibitory to the learning of the target language especially when
there are remarkable differences between the two languages.
4. Transfer of Training
Transfer of training is a cognitive process where the L2 learner applies
rules learned from textbooks or instructors. Sometimes, the L2 learner applies
these rules correctly, but at other times, they are superfluously used. For
example, when simple past forms of the verb are used to express events that
happened in the distant past. Chidi-Onwuta & Oluikpe provide negative evidence
of Igbo−English bilinguals who superfluously used forms of the verb and articles
to communicate meaning in the TL. Transfer of training has to do with how
instruction plays a significant role in language acquisition. The way learners are
taught produces both progression and mistakes. Lack of formal instruction or
wrong instruction may result in replicating incorrect language forms. For
example, a student keeps saying: ''We don't have many homeworks,'' and in
attempt not to overcorrect, the teacher does not fix the sentence whenever the
student produces it. They are left under the impression this form is correct and
continue using it.
The observable errors above are directly traceable to the manner of
presentation of the language features in the school course. In a foreign language
teaching setting where the major source of comprehensible input in English is the
teaching manual and the teacher, errors traceable to transfer of training would
affect learners’ IL. The transfer of training errors above reveals an attempt,
according to Oluikpe, of the Igbo−English bilingual to grapple with idiosyncratic
usage patterns of verb forms and articles (ART) in the English language. These
errors showed up in the learners’ IL because Igbo does not have all the verb
forms as found in English. Again, there is no ART in Igbo language. In using ART
and other verb forms not found in Igbo, the Igbo−English bilingual use those
linguistic features superfluously.
5. Strategies of Communication
Strategies of communication come about when, during a conversation
in L2, especially with a native speaker, learners may become more concerned
with how fluent they sound rather than how accurate. Depending on when,
where, and how communication takes place, learners make choices. They
identify approaches that they feel comfortable with and that seem to work for
them. For example, a learner may try to simplify L2 in a conversation by using
simple constructions and simple words, which leads to repetition, but they feel
comfortable at that level.
12 | P a g e
Strategies of communication are cognitive processes the L2 learner
engages to convey meaning when faced with production problems in the TL.
Less proficient L2 learners adopt communication strategies like avoidance,
message abandonment, literal translation, and language switching while their
more proficient counterparts explore strategies like circumlocution, word coinage,
and approximation. Factors that affect the L2 learner’s choice of a particular
communication strategy depending on the learner’s personality and context.
As Ellis (2002) defined, the cognitive component of procedural knowledge is
composed of the various mental process involved in both internalizing and
automatizing new L2 knowledge and using L2 knowledge along with other
knowledge sources to communicate in L2. It’s evident that these processes
involve L2 learning and using, where the former concerns learning strategy and
the latter communication strategy. In real communication, learners may turn to
communication strategy, a systematic skill that a speaker resorts to while
having difficulties in expression to keep the communication going on.
Unfortunately, sometimes such “successful use of communication strategies will
prevent acquisition”, Ellis (2002) said, for the learner may become so “skillful” in
making up for lack of linguistic knowledge by the use of various communication
strategies such as avoidance or paraphrase. Also, the learner inclines to simplify
the target language, especially to simplify the grammatical rules, for instance, the
use of the articles, plural forms and the use of tenses. And this reflects the
unsatisfactory effect of communicative teaching methods.
EFFECTS OF INTERLANGUAGE
Fossilization
Over time, interlanguage slowly evolves and starts to resemble L2. The ultimate
goal is equivalence or near equivalence. However, adult learners rarely reach this
perfection level. Instead, somewhere along the way, they hit a language stagnation
point, or fossilization. It does not happen all at once. The learner freezes a form rather
than correcting it. Certain aspects of the language may freeze much earlier than others.
Reasons for fossilization have different roots. Once a student reaches a comfortable
communicative level, they may lose motivation to correct forms where they make
mistakes. Other reasons include the inability to overcome certain linguistic obstacles, an
inadequate learning environment with no exposure to colloquial language, or
incompletely or incorrectly learned linguistic forms that cannot be unlearned. All in all,
after fossilization, there may be a slim potential for further developing conceptual
understanding of L2.
Selinker first put forwarded the notion of fossilization in the paper Interlanguage
in 1972. He noted that 95% of L2 learners failed to reach the same level of L1
13 | P a g e
competence from his observation. This kind of phenomenon is defined by Selinker
(1972) as fossilization. Fossilization, a mechanism…underlies surface linguistic material
which speakers will tend to keep in their IL productive performance, no matter what the
age of the learner or the amount of instruction he receives in the TL. Selinker and
Lamendella (1978) redefined fossilization as a permanent cessation of IL learning
before the learner has attained TL norms at all levels of linguistic structure and in all
discourse domains in spite of the learner’s positive ability, opportunity, and motivation to
learn and acculturate into target society. The notion of fossilization has been interpreted
differently by different scholars since it was proposed. For instance, there are terms like
backsliding, stabilized errors, learning plateau, typical error, persistent non-target-like
performance,
de-acceleration of the learning process, ingrained errors, systematic use of erroneous
forms, cessation of learning, structural persistence, ultimate attainment, long-lasting free
variation, persistent difficulty, and inability to fully master target language features
describing the similar meaning, which lead to confusion for quite a long time. There are
some commonly accepted concept about fossilization. (1) it may appear at different
language levels; (2) it may occur at different learning stages among age groups; (3) it
may be either structure fossilization or competence fossilization; (4) it is usually
manifested as the deviant forms from the TL norms; (5) there are soft and hard degrees
of fossilization.
TEACHER'S PERSPECTIVE
Nonetheless, understanding interlanguage can help teachers understand what
learners go through in L2 acquisition. They can develop reasonable expectations and
prepare authentic and suitable materials to avoid inadequate training or early
fossilization. Teachers may develop a deeper understanding of errors learners make
and determine whether they need to make changes to their teaching plan. Errors can
show learners' progress and ability and their struggles with using L2.
LESSON SUMMARY
To sum up, interlanguage is a linguistic system created by second language
learners to assist their second language acquisition. Rules are created by individual
learners, so they are unique for every learner. Interlanguages are systematic, but they
are also open to changes, which take place with progress. Interlanguage is variable
across contexts and domains.
According to Selinker, the four stages of interlanguage development are: .
random errors or pre-systematic stage, emergent stage, systematic stage, and
stabilization or post-systematic stage.
14 | P a g e
Factors that shape interlanguage include overgeneralization, learning strategies,
language transfer, transfer of training, and strategies of communication. The final stage
of interlanguage is called fossilization, and it is when a form freezes in the state it is in,
correct or not. Instructors who understand interlanguage well can work to prevent
fossilization.
________________________________________________________________
References:
Al-khresheh MH. A review study of interlanguage theory. International Journal of
Applied Linguistics & English Literature. 2015;4(3):124-131
Brown, H. D. (1987). Principles of language learning, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Chidi-Onwuta G, Oluikpe B. Analysis of fossilized errors in speech production
of adult Igbo-English bilinguals. International Journal of Communication and
Media Studies. 2016;6(1):1-12
Corder, S.P. (1967). ‘The Significance of Learner's Errors’, IRAL, 5/4 NOV, 161-170.
Retrieved at https://edisciplinas.usp.br/mod/resource/view.php?id=3204637
Ellis R. Sources of variability in interlanguage. Applied Linguistics.1985;6:118-131
Frith M.B. Second Language Learning: A Study of Form and Function at Two
Stages of Developing Interlanguages. Ann Arbour: Indiana; 1976
Han, Z. (2004). Fossilization in Adult Second Language Acquisition, Multilingual Matters:
UK. Retrieved at https://academiccommons.columbia.edu/doi/ 10.7916/D8F480XK/
James, C. (2013). Errors in Language Learning and Use: Exploring Error Analysis,
Routledge: Taylor & Francis Group. London & New York
Nemser, W. (1971). Approximative Systems of Foreign Language Learners, IRAL, 9/2
MAY, 115-123. Retrieved at http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED026639.pdf
Odlin T. Language Transfer: Cross Linguistic Influence in Language Learning.
New York: Cambridge University Press; 1989
Richards J. Social factors, interlanguage, and language learning. Language Learning.
1972;22:149-188
15 | P a g e
Selinker, L. (1972). ‘Interlanguage’, IRAL, 10/3 AUG, 209-241. Retrieved at
https://kupdf.net/download/selinker interlanguage_59f1ff3fe2b6f5604ea71872_pdf
Song L. On the variability of interlanguage. Theory and Practice in Language Studies.
2012;2(4):778-783
Towell, R., and Hawkins, R. (1994). Approaches to Second Language Acquisition,
Multilingual Matters: UK. Retrieved at https://www.academia.edu/33294803/
Wang X, Fan L. An analysis of interlanguage features and English learning. Journal of
Higher Education Research. 2020;1(1):31-37
16 | P a g e