Interlanguage goes to the movies: Steven Spielberg’s The Terminal
Paper presented at Language and the Media, Leeds September 2005
Martha Young-Scholten
School of English Literature, Language and Linguistics
Newcastle University
Newcastle upon Tyne, England
Abstract
This paper deals with language as represented by the media rather than in the media.
Misrepresentations by the news media of complex topics such as adult second language
acquisition are rife; given the film industry’s mission to entertain rather than to inform, one does
not expect Hollywood to differ. Yet the 2004 film The Terminal (2004) gets it right overall as
well as with respect to the details. Stranded in a New York airport for a year, Tom Hanks’
character, Viktor, accurately depicts the early and intermediate stages of the second language
acquisition of English, demonstrating how ample, comprehensible naturalistic exposure – even
for adult learners - can lead to a relatively advanced level of second language proficiency. During
his airport stay, Viktor passes through stages of acquisition widely recognized by researchers
working within a Chomskyan nativist framework, where it is assumed that adults have access to
the same mechanisms responsible for the effortless acquisition of language by children (White
1989).
Perhaps Hollywood is smarter than the news media (which frequently misrepresents complex
ideas) or Hollywood holds its audience in higher regard than the media holds its readers. Close
analysis of the dialog in the film points to decisions that were likely made to drive a plot that
would have fizzled had the film makers not subscribed to Krashen’s (1985) or Schwartz’s (1993)
ideas on adults’ ability to use comprehensible input in the form of utterances heard by the learner
(primary linguistic data) in ways similar to young children.
Hollywood, at least Terminal producer Steven Spielberg, represents language acquisition much
more accurately than a British film released one year earlier in 2003 which also involves adult
second language acquisition. Richard Curtis’ Love Actually involves so many parallel plots that
no time is left for realistic portrayals of second language acquisition.
Treating the dialogue of the L2 learners in these two films on par with the sort of oral production
data with which researchers often work points to the conclusion that Love Actually is simply silly
and The Terminal a work of genius in terms of their respective representations of human
language. Sacrificing accuracy for the story line and the box office is a temptation that many film
makers fall prey to, and Hollywood en masse is not immune: Spanglish is yet another recent gross
mis-depiction of second language acquisition. Steven Spielberg’s history of cinematic integrity
extends to second language acquisition, where in his choice of topic he performs a social service
by not shirking from complex issues, and when doing so, he make an effort and succeeds in
presenting the issue as complex as it is. Second language acquisition is not on par with genocide
or terrorism, but because of the ubiquity of second language acquisition and the folk
misapprehensions about adult second language acquisition, it can be argued that its accurate
depiction on film is equally important.
1. Introduction
Misrepresentations by the news media of complex issues such as adult second language (L2)
acquisition are rife; given the film industry’s mission to entertain rather than inform, one does not
expect better treatment of complex topics from Hollywood. Yet upon close examination, we
discover that the protagonist in the 2004 film The Terminal demonstrates the process of second
language acquisition as accurately as would the researcher. Against the backdrop of a film
released a year earlier, Richard Curtis’ 2003 Love Actually, Steven Spielberg’s The Terminal is
exceptional in its non-reinforcement of the folk beliefs about adult L2 acquisition that researchers
have successfully challenged in studies carried out from the 1970s onwards (e.g. Bailey, Madden
and Krashen 1974). Treating the dialogue of the L2 learners in these two films on par with the
sort of oral production data with which researchers often work allows us to conclude that Love
Actually is simply silly and The Terminal a work of genius in terms of their respective
representations of human language.
2. Background: second language acquisition
2.1. Two views on second language mastery
Second language acquisition researchers generally fall into two main camps: those who hold that
language acquisition is guided by innate linguistic mechanisms regardless of age (White 1989)
and those who hold that older learners (henceforth ‘adults’) are fundamentally different from
younger first or second language learners. For researchers who take this position, adult second
language acquisition is guided by general cognitive mechanisms (Bley-Vroman 1990; Clahsen
and Muysken 1986; Schachter 1989). If innate linguistic mechanisms are involved at all, these are
accessed via the learner’s first language competence.
Researchers who subscribe to this Fundamental Difference Hypothesis see adult L2
learning as entailing conscious effort. With their superior cognitive abilities (having reached
Piaget’s (1978) stage of Formal Operations) and assuming general skill learning is subject to
volitional control, adults can can succeed in mastering an L2 when conscious effort is made to
attend to the form of utterances along with their meaning (Robinson 1995; Schmidt 1990; 2001).
The cognitive superiority view favours the language classroom or self-access centre, with its
books, tapes and and software as the best place for an adult to attain high levels of fluency and
accuracy in a second language.
In diametric opposition to this view, and in keeping with age-independent access to
linguistic mechanisms is the idea that the learner is able to make use of primary linguistic data
(utterances heard by the learner) to accomplish the task of language acquistion (Schwartz 1993).
Because the learner’s grammar ‘takes care of itself’ in the process of comprehending a message
(only paying attention to its content or meaning), a language classroom is necessary only in nonimmerision situations, where the sole speakers of an L2 are language teachers (Krashen 1985;
1999). There is considerable evidence to support the view that with sufficient exposure to the L2,
but without instruction (i.e. ‘naturalistically’), adults can attain high levels of oral proficiency.
Even those who subscribe to the Fundamental Difference Hypothesis (e.g. Clahsen and Muysken
1986) have been directly involved in research on naturalistic adults revealing the stage-like,
systematic, internal processing of input known as ‘interlanguage’ (Selinker 1972) rather than
straightforward transfer of the learner’s native language.
2.2. The route of linguistic development
Since Krashen’s (1973) contestation of the neurobiological evidence on which Lenneberg (1970)
based his Critical Period Hypothesis, and Bailey, Madden and Krashen’s (1974) landmark study
concluding that L2 acquisition resembles L1 acquisition - whether by pre-puberty children or
post-puberty adults - there have been scores of studies of both naturalistic and instructed L2
acquisition. Typically using data from learners’ oral production, these studies have confirmed that
learners follow a predictable route of development largely independent of learners’ age at initial
exposure, their native language, the type of exposure or their educational background (Ellis 1990;
Hawkins 2001). While many studies have also provided evidence that post-puberty learners are
usually less successful in the long run than their younger counterparts (e.g. Johnson and Newport
1989), researchers continue to question whether biologically-driven maturation around puberty
means the end of involvement of linguistic mechanisms in second language acquisition (see
Hawkins 2001; White 2003).
The development of language has long been observed to be non-linear rather than
additive in nature, where a process of continual restructuring often results in errors not previously
made by the learner. Berko’s (1958) U-shaped development description of the acquisition of past
tense and plural marking in English nicely illustrates this: the child initially produces irregular
forms correctly, but a lengthy period of over-generalization of –ed and –s to irregular forms
ensues when the child discovers the rules of past and plural marking. Over-application of this
rule results in previously ‘bare’ forms such as play being produced as played and shoe as shoes,
but previously correct but unanalyzed forms such as went being produced as wented or replaced
by goed and sheep being produced as sheeps.
A range of L2 studies over the years point to the development of verbal morpho-syntactic
along the lines of the stages shown in Table 1. These stages originate in proposals by Vainikka
and Young-Scholten
(1994; 1996; 1998; 2002) developed through analysis of data from
uninstructed English-, Italian-, Korean-, Spanish- and Turkish-speaking adults learning German
and are taken further by Myles (2005) for French and by Hawkins (2001) and Vainikka, YoungScholten and Ijuin (2005) for English (and termed Organic Grammar. Under this ‘structure
building’ approach, these stages represent the emergence of complex syntax and its associated
verbal morphology from an early ‘telegraphic’ stage (Stage 1) to an elaborated near-native stage
(Stage 5).
Table 1. The development of English morpho-syntax
Stage word order
types of verbs
agreement;
tense marking
initially native- thematic (main) verbs none
1
language-like
only
2
3
4
5
no longer like
the native
language
declaratives
resemble the
target language
thematic verbs;
copula ’is’ appears overgeneralized
expansion to modals
and copula forms
beyond ‘is’
word order in
declaratives
generally
correct
word order in
declaratives
always like the
target language
expansion to
auxiliary verb ‘be’
expansion to
auxiliary verb ‘have’
none
no main verb
agreement;
tense appears,
but w/ -ed
overgeneralized
productive
tense, aspect;
agreement on
forms of ‘be’
forms usually
correct, apart
from newly
attempted
combinations
pronouns
complex syntax
no subject or
object
pronouns
pronouns
begin to
appear
new pronoun
forms, but
not
obligatory
none
pronouns
obligatory,
‘there’ and
‘it’ appear
use of
‘there’ and
‘it’ beyond
stock phrases
Some Qs lack
inversion;
simple
subordination
Qs inverted;
but embedded
ones are too;
complex
subordination
formulaic or
intonationbased Qs
formulaic whQs; univerted
yes/no Qs;
conjoined
clauses
For L2 learners, Stage 1 involves transfer of simple native-language declarative word order but
no complex syntax and thematic or main verbs, without any native language or target language
functional morphology, as shown here. Myles (2005) discusses an even earlier stage which only
involves single words. An illustration of Stage 1 comes from Yamada-Yamamoto’s (1993)
longitudinal study of Japanese-speaking Jun. Initially Jun’s English syntax is characterized by his
Japanese object-verb word order. Nineteen months later, he is still at the same stage, but his
simple declarative utterances exhibit the verb-object word order of English. His verbs are all
thematic or main verbs which are bare forms (‘eat’) or non-finite present participle forms
(‘eating’).
1a)
breat eat
bananas eating
b)
eating banana
wash your hand
Examples from adult US immigrants illustrate Stages 4 and 5. In (3) simple subordination
occurs, and verb forms are still incorrect with respect to tense and agreement, and some
functional morphemes are still absent. In (4), at Stage 5, complex subordination is now possible,
and verb forms and other functional morphology are usually correct.
3) Someone’s die because he have accident.
Car hit the kid that’s lie down on the street.
4) When you reverse, you have to see anybody behind. He doesn’t did that.
I was in the river contoured with beautiful green trees.
Specific constructions such as questions can be isolated and their stage-like development
examined. Based on Hawkins (2001), Table 2 provides further details of the criteria shown in the
rightmost column in Table 1 under ‘complex syntax’.
Table 2. Stages in the development of English questions (adapted from Hawkins 2001)
Stage Description
Example
1
rising intonation
Four children? Boys throw the shoes?
2
elements
missing;
no Is the picture has two planets on top?
inversion of verb/auxiliary Where the little children are?
3
copula ‘be’ may be Is there fish in the water?
Where is the sun?
correctly inverted
4
auxiliaries, modals and Do you want to eat?
‘do’ appear in Qs, inverted What is the boy doing?
5
inversion is over-applied
Can you tell me what does he want?
Native language influence and the learner’s end state (of L2 attainment) is discussed by Hawkins
(2001) in terms of a Failed Functional Features hypothesis under which those features absent in
the learner’s native language are predicted to resist acquisition in the target language. An
example of this is the article system in English involving a three-way contrast between definite,
indefinite and Ø articles which is absent in languages such as Chinese and Japanese. While the
extent of native language influence at the initial state and beyond, the relationship between syntax
and functional morphology during acquisition and the explanation for transitions during
development have been vigorously debated for over a decade, (e.g. Pienemann 1998; Prévost and
White 2000; Schwartz and Sprouse 1996; Vainikka and Young-Scholten 2005), the observable
characteristics of each stage in L2ers’ production have been considerably less contested.
2.3. The rate of linguistic development
The examples from young Jun above highlight the observation that linguistic development has its
own time course. This is the case whether one considers children acquiring their first language or
children or adults acquiring a second language naturalistically or in the classroom. Motivation
has been proposed to account for greater extent to which rate of acquisition varies for adult L2
learners (see e.g. Dornyei 2001). If motivation is realised in the learner’s access to primary
linguistic data, it is not surprising to find in studies of naturalistic learners that those with the
fastest rates were learners who became romantically involved with target-language speakers
(‘Bongiovanni’ in Clahsen and Muysken 1986 and ‘Joan’ in Vainikka and Young-Scholten
2002). There is clearly a strong relationship between rate of L2 development and amount of
exposure to utterances in the L2 (although length of residence does not necessarily equate to
actual exposure). Sharwood Smith (1994), for example, notes that a child receives 9,000 hours of
input by age five, when most children have reached at least Stage 4 Table 5. Myles’ (2005) study
of older English-speaking children’s acquisition of French in the classroom shows that most of
the learners made a transition from Stage 1 (as shown in Table 1 above) to Stage 2 between 141
and 254 hours of instruction.
Estimates exist regarding number of hours needed for adult immigrants learning L2
English in the classroom to function at a ‘survival level’ in society. Although researches do not
specify the morpho-syntactic stage this equates to, functioning at survival level most likely means
Stage 3. Cunningham-Florez (2003) proposes 500 to 1,000 hours, and Shameem et al. (2002)
800 to 1,200 hours. Finally, with no studies replicating or extending Snow and HoefnagelHöhle’s (1978) year-long study of child, adolescent and adult English-speaking learners of Dutch,
the relationship of age and instruction to rate of morpho-syntactic development, their conclusion
that ‘older is better’ in L2 acquisition has remained unchallenged.
3. The ‘studies’
With the above information as our point of departure, we turn to second language production data
from Love Actually and The Terminal, subjecting the dialog in these two films to linguistic
analysis. The ‘methods and materials’ section takes the form of plot synopses here.
3.1. Love and a second language in three weeks
The ten stories in Love Actually revolve around discovering or rediscovering love during the
Christmas season. In the first scene in one of the film’s plots, we see Jamie (Colin Firth) settling
in at a French country cottage to finish a piece of writing. Jamie’s French is no help when his
housekeeper /cook turns out to be a young monolingual Portuguese woman Aurelia (Sienna
Guillory). In the second scene, Jamie and Aurelia ramble on uncomfortably in their native
languages, with no obvious attempts at communication. When Jamie’s typewritten manuscript
blows into the nearby lake, Aurelia sheds her clothing, swims in and attempts to retrieve the
pages. Their simmering, mutual attraction simmers a bit more. A week before Christmas we find
Jamie back in the UK learning Portuguese at the Central London School of Languages, a selfaccess centre filled with hundreds of adults learning various lanugages. Jamie is shown repeating
in Portuguese: ‘Oh my god, I have a terrible stomach ache’ and ‘It tastes delicious’. A week
later, on Christmas Eve he flys down to Portugal to propose to Aurelia at the restaurant where she
works. In the fifth and final scene Jamie and Aurelia arrive back in the UK to announce their
wedding plans to Jamie’s friends.
Analysis of the data – Jamie and Aurelia’s oral production – shows remarkable L2
development between the second and third week since their meeting. At the beginning (three
weeks before Christmas), Jamie’s and Aurelia’s L2 development shows their initial state, the end
steady state of their first language acquisition.
5) Stage 0a
no L2 Portuguese or English production (or comprehension); Jamie and
Aurelia speak their native languages to each other
Later the same week (after the book manuscript-in-the-lake incident) when Jamie is loading
Christmas presents into the boot of his car, he provides evidence of a possible early stage of
development, or of a communicative strategy, i.e. use of other Romance languages he appears to
know. There is also native language transfer in evidence with respect to pragmatics, as shown by
Jamie’s conversational hedging in his use of apology (Grundy 2000).
6) Stage 0b: Pidgin Romance
Apologia. Grande traditione de Christmas presents.
apologies grand tradition of Christmas presents
‘I apologize (for our British) grand tradition of (exchanging) Christmas presents.’
When Jamie appears in Portugal on Christmas Eve, the only data we have (in (7) below) force us
to conclude that he has reached the highest stage of L2 development, i.e. Stage 5:.
Table 3. Jamie’s stages of morpho-syntactic development of L2 Portuguese
Stage
verbs
agreement; tense
pronouns
Stage 0
0
0
0
Scenes 1 and 2 (3 wks preChristmas)
1 week before Christmas
Jamie attends the Central School of Languages self
access centre. He repeats Portuguese phrases ‘Oh my
God, I have a terrible stomach ache.’
Stage 4
auxiliary,
productive
tense, pronouns
Christmas Eve
other verb aspect; agreement
mastered
forms
expand.
Yet Jamie’s errors reveal confusion among noun, adjective and verb forms typical of early rather
than later stage learners:
7) Stage 5: complex subordination, range of morphology, mostly target-language-like
Jamie: Good evening, Aurelia. (in Portuguese)
Aurlelia: Good evening, Jamie.
Jamie: Beautiful Aurelia. I’ve come here with a view to asking you to
marriage me. I know I seems an insane person because I hardly know you,
but sometimes things are so transparency they don’t need evidential proof.
And I will inhabit here or you can inhabit with me in England. Of course I
don’t expecting you to be as foolish as me, and of course I prediction
you’ll say but it’s Christmas and I just wanted to check.
(all in Portuguese)
Producer Richard Curtis does accurately capture one aspect of L2 acquisition: morphological
details take more time to master than syntax.
Jamie’s L2 Portuguese acquisiton supports the cognitive superiority view discussed
above and also reinforce the stereotype of British verbal advantage in a novel way, showing that
not only are the Oxbridge-educated superb public debators, given the right (romance) motivation,
they are able to achieve accelerated rates of second language development rarely documented.
Even if Jamie had spent all his waking hours learning Portuguese, Myles’ study of classroom
learners suggests he would have only reached Stage 2 after a possible 225 or so hours spent on
learning. Older learners (both L2 children and adults) demonstrate the ability to memorize
chunks (Myles 2004), and perhaps it is this aspect of cognitive superiority that has allowed Jamie
to memorize his wedding proposal.
A perfect linguistic match for Jamie, Aurelia has also reached Stage 5 (although how
she has done this is not shown in the film), with the same systematic morphological errors Jamie
makes:
8)
Aurelia: (in English) Thank you, that will be nice, is being my answer.
Jamie: You learned English.
Aurelia: Just in cases.
The final scene, and only other source of data, with Jamie and Aurelia at the airport back in
Britain provides no counter-evidence that both of have not reached Stage 5.
Love Actually is a film full of improbabilities; perhaps if Jamie’s and Aurelia’s effortless
L2 acquisition is also meant ironically? This film and The Terminal, as we shall shortly see,
illustrate the cultural-embeddedness of approaches to second language learning. ‘For many
Americans, Britain is a strange and exotic land glimpsed only through the work of Richard
Curtis’ (Dowling 2003). Love Actually affords a peak at how the well-educated middle class of
Notting Hill effortless master foreign languages when love calls, but without human contact. In
the end, it is likely that nothing was leftover in a budget for a cast including Colin Firth as well as
Emma Thompson, Liam Neeson and Hugh Grant to allow even for treatment of L2 acquisition in
the classroom. As McMorrow (2005:21) also notes, the film was ‘already just too crowded with
plot lines and locations to allow for any real classroom scenes’.
3.2 Interlanguage goes to the movies:
The opening scences of the The Terminal show Viktor (Tom Hanks) arriving at a New York
airport, just as his fictitious country, Krakozhia, has undergone a coup. Stateless, he cannot leave
the airport as long as his passport does not represent a legitimate country. In the course of his year
at the airport, he interacts with immigration officials, other airport employees and airport
construction workers. He assists in matchmaking and falls in love himself, with flight attendant
Amelia (Catherine Zeta Jones).
Viktor’s earliest L2 development is typical of a tourist arriving with an arsenal of stock
phrases. As mentioned above, memorization of chunks, particularly in classroom situations, is
typical for L2 learners (Myles 2004). When Viktor’s original plans change, these strategies fail
him.
9) Scene 1
Thurman: What exactly are you doing in the USA?
Viktor: Yellow taxi cab. Take me to Ramada Inn, 161 Lexington.
Thurman: You’re staying at the Ramada Inn?
Viktor: Keep the change.
At this point, those dealing with him have no inkling that Viktor neither speaks nor comprehends
any English as revealed by the detailed explanations they attempt to give Viktor about his
situation. Customs and immigration cheif graphically acts out Viktor’s country-less situation
with an apple, which ‘represents the liberal rebels’, using it to smash some crisps. Viktor
continues to answer in unanalyzed memorized tourist chunks which include cultural references as
in ‘Big Apple tour include...’ and ‘Where do I buy the Nike shoes?’.
He also answers
‘yes...yes....yes’ with intonation indicating he is following what he’s listening to. This further
reinforces the impressioin that Viktor has fully understood everything. In his exchanges with
Thurman and with Frank, Viktor reveals another communicative strategy when he repeats content
words receiving sentential stress (10a) or uses such words together with memorized chunks (10b):
10a)
Thurman: Krakozhia is under new leadership.
Vickor: Krakozhia. (smiles)
Viktor: ‘Yes...yes....yes’ (as Thurman explains what the situation in
Krakozhia means for Viktor)
Thurman: You are at this time unacceptable.
Viktor: Unacceptable.
b)
Frank: You have fallen through a small crack in the system.
Viktor: I am crack?
Frank takes Viktor’s passport.
Frank: I’m going to sign a release form. You’ll be a free man in here.
Viktor: Free. Thank you.
While these exchanges humorously reinforce Frank’s and Thurman’s mistaken impression of
Viktor as a competent English speaker for the audience, the data actually represent Viktor’s
earliest stage of acquisition for the L2 researcher. That Viktor is at a very early stage
of development is finally revealed when he walks out into the airport and catches tv news
showing his country’s coup. Distressed, he tried to solicit help from passersby to use the
telephone vouchers he received in his flight delay compensation package from Frank and
Thurman. Apart from Viktor’s memorized unanalyzed chunks, there is no evidence in these data
for any morpho-syntactic development beyond single words ((Myles’ 2005 pre-Stage 1)
11)
Viktor: Please help.
Viktor: (telephone voucher in hand, while attempting to phone home, he
tries to elicit the help of passersby)
Viktor: Telephone. Telephone. Please. Please.
All the vouchers he has been given scatter to the floor and are swept up by an airport janitor. With
no valid currency and no food vouchers, obtaining something to eat then becomes Viktor’s first
motivation for improving his English. Incomprehension of immigration procedures is the context
for his second motivation, as he repeatedly fills out immigration forms and has them rejected. His
interactions with the same female official eventually introduce a third motivation: matchmaking.
A chance meeting with flight attendant Amelia sets the scene for the expected romance motivator.
This in turn motivates Viktor to find a job so he can buy a suit, and through several turns of plot,
Viktor finds employment with an airport remodelling crew. The language Viktor hears, the
primary linguistic data he receives, is in the context of concrete situations which make this input
comprehensible. Viktor’s sub-conscious processing is not directly revealed to the audience - and
need not be to the L2 researcher. Viktor’s conscious use of several communication strategies take
him from the early stages of acquisition to higher levels of attainment and provide a number of
humorous exchanges for the viewers . What the audience views is Viktor memorizing new
phrases from his bilingual guidebook to deal with various situations, and then occasionally selfdrilling and memorizing words and chunks he hears from others and then repeating these words
and chunks in new contexts.
The data – Viktor’s dialog – from the entire film reveal an L2 learner moving through
four of the five stages of morpho-syntactic development shown above in Table 1. In the inputrich environment in which Viktor lives for a year, his rate of acquisition is comparable to that of
three English-speaking adolescent learners of L2 German whose input-rich environment was that
of host families and German secondary schools; after a year of naturalistic exposure to German,
two of the learners reached Stage 4, and one reached Stage 5 (Vainikka and Young-Scholten
2002).
It is not possible to determine the extent of any native-language syntax influence at the
start of Viktor’s acquisition, as the audience is given no information about his native (fictitious)
Krakozhian other than indications it is a Slavic language. His use of empty subjects where
pronouns should appear in English, as in are not necessarily an indication of their status in
Krakozhian, as pronouns are often missing at early stages in the acquisition of languages which
require them, regardless of their status in the learner’s native language. Viktor’s persistent lack
of third person singular –s agreement marking on main verbs is also not an indication that his
native language lacks agreement; this functional morpheme appears late in both first and second
language acquisition, regardless of age or native language background. Tense and plural marking
show some U-shaped development where in early scenes (7-9) he overgeneralizes plural –s in
womens and wolfmens and in scene 18 he overgeneralizes past tense –ed in keeped.
Table 4. Acquisition of English by an adult Krakozhian native speaker
verbs
agreement; tense
pronouns
main verbs
Scene 1
none
Scene 1
empty
1
only
subjects
allowed
main verb
Scene 2-8
none
Scene 2-8
empty
2
some copula
subjects
‘is’
allowed
Scene 9-11 empty
Scene 9-11
some agrmt
other forms
3
subjects
on copula;
of copula
allowed
some tense
‘be’;
w/
modals
-ed overgen.
appear
Scene 13‘there’ and
Scene 13- 20 productive
auxiliary
4
‘it’ appear;
tense, aspect; 20
‘be’ expands;
pronouns
agreement on
do appears;
obligatory
forms of ‘be’
further modal
forms
Scene 1
Scene
2-8
Scene
9-11
Scene
13 to 20
Table 5 provides a narrower look at Viktor’s acquisition of questions (see Table 2 above), with
data taken only from a regular poker game he participated in with the airport employee friends
who initially provided him with food.
Table 5. Stages in the development of Viktor’s questions
Stage Description
Example
1
rising intonation
Tuesday? Scenes 1-2
2
elements
missing;
no See the wet floor? Scene 3
inversion of verb/auxiliary What mean wild stallion? Scene 6
3
copula ‘be’ may be No examples
correctly inverted
4
auxiliaries, modals and Have you been ever in the love? Scene 8
‘do’ appear in Qs, inverted Would you like to get a little bite? Scene 15
So when do you come back?
Scene 16
Viktor’s ommission of or over-generalization of articles from the start and throughout most his
immersion in English suggests its absence in his native language, along the lines of Hawkins’
(2001) Failed Functional Features hypothesis. Features of Viktor’s interlanguage phonology
include difficulties with English /æ/ in words like ‘jazz’ and ‘back’, where they are pronounced
with an [Ε] and spelling pronunciations for words such as <peace>, which he pronounces as
[piats].
Unlike the portrayal of second language learning in Love Actually, the language
acquisition plot strand in The Terminal could have been extracted from Hawkins’ (2001) or
Vainikka and Young-Scholten (2002). Viktor’s demonstration of L2 development (as discussed
in Section 2) means he does not break interlanguage character when, to serve the plot, his
production is variable. For typical L2 learners, utterances may come from earlier or later stages
than the stage at which the majority of their utterances place them. The film exploits this when
Viktor’s English suddenly jumps to a more advanced developmental stage in order to ensure
successful comprehension by the audience. In Viktor’s last conversation with Frank, when
Krakozhia has established a new government, Frank returns his passport to him. Viktor’s use of
the early-stage bare form ‘go’ without an auxiliary or –ing emphasizes his foreign status and his
use of a later stage auxiliary verb will makes his intentions of returning to Krakozhia clear to the
audience.
12)
Viktor: I go New York. I go New York City now.
But then:
Viktor: I will go home.
After Viktor has honoured his father’s dying wish by getting the autograph of a New York jazz
musician, his last two lines encapsulate the film’s entire second language acquisition narrative.
The penultimate line is part of the first memorized chunk he utters in the film, and his last line is
a target language English construction he utters for the first time in the film.
13)
Viktor: Taxi.
I am going home.
4. Discussion and conclusion
4.1. Spielberg America vs. Curtis Britain
Why does Hollywood succeed in accurately depicting a complex topic such as adult second
language acquisition? In terms of its cultural context, The Terminal is in the spirit of learnin’ by
the seat of your pants in a Spielberg universe, populated immigrants and their sons and daughters,
grandsons and granddaughers. The film is really all about second language acquisition. Altruism
in multicultural America, romance and homage to departed fathers are all side plots. Hollywood
also has the Krashen advantage: language acquisition research powerhouses, USC (where
Stephen Krashen is now emeritus professor) and UCLA are right down the boulevard from
Hollywood. Indeed, a BA in Film and TV Production at USC currently requires students to take
during their first two pre-major years courses which can include ‘Immigrants in the United States’
and Language and Mind’:
The university’s general education program provides a coherent, integrated
introduction to the breadth of knowledge you will need to consider yourself (and to be
considered by other people) a generally well-educated person. This program requires
six courses in different categories, plus writing, foreign language and diversity
requirements […] The diversity requirement must be met by all students.
Unlike Steven Spielberg, who dropped out of nearby Long Beach University, Richard Curtis got a
First in English Language and Literature, where the department’s requirements have likely
undergone few recent changes :
All parts of the English course are taught through a mixture of tutorials, classes, and
lectures. During most of your undergraduate career you will be studying 1-2 papers a
term, and will thus have 1-2 tutorials a week, supplemented by 1-2 college classes. You
would also normally attend a number of lecture courses and university classes during
the week in the English Faculty […] There is also a constant source of opportunities
for creative writing and involvement in drama in the university as a whole.
It appears that it is not Hollywood that is responsible, but rather Steven Spielberg. The idea that
adults are able to pick up an L2 by interacting with native speakers is a basic premise of The
Terminal, yet another Hollywood film released the same year as The Terminal, James L. Brooks’
Spanglish fails in much the same way as Love Actually in failure to develop its second language
acquisition plot line. Halfway through the film, Spanish-speaking nanny, Flor, resorts to video
tapes to learn English, although she has been immersed in English from the earliest scenes.
In the right hands, non-documentary cinema can be a surprisingly good medium to treat
a complex topics. In The Terminal Steven Spielberg extends his reputation for cinematic integrity
where in his expansion of the second language acquisition plot line he performs a social service.
Second language acquisition is not on par with genocide or terrorism, but because of the ubiquity
of second language acquisition and the folk misconceptions about adult second language
acquisition, it can be argued that its accurate depiction on film is equally important.
References
Bailey, N, C. Madden and S. Krashen. (1974) Is there a ‘natural sequence’ in adult
second language learning? Language Learning 24:235-243.
Bley-Vroman, R. (1990) The logical problem of foreign language learning. Linguistic
Analysis 20:3-49.
Berko, J. (1958) The child’s learning of English morphology. Word 14:150-177.
Clahsen, H. and P. Muysken (1986). The availability of Universal Grammar to adult and
child learners - A study of the acquisition of German word order.
Second
Language Research 2:93-119.
Cunningham Florez, M. 2003. Working with literacy-level adults English language learners.
ERIC Brief. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.
Dornyei, Z. (2001) Teaching and Researching Motivation. London:Longman.
Dowling, T. (2003). Curtis Britain. A brief guide. The Guardian. 13 November.
Ellis, R. (1990) Instructed Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Blackwell.
Grundy, P. (2000). Doing Pragmatics. London: Arnold.
Hawkins, R. (2001). Second Language Syntax. A Generative Introduction. Malden, MA:
Blackwell.
Johnson, J. and E. Newport. (1989) Critical period effects in second language learning:
the influence of maturational state on the acquisition of English as a second
language. Cognitive Psychology 21:60-99.
Klein, W. and C. Perdue. (1997). The Basic Variety (or: Couldn’t natural languages be
much simpler? Second Language Research, 13, 301-347.
Krashen, S. (1973) Lateralization, language learning and the Critical Period: Some new
evidence. Language Learning 23:63-74.
Krashen, S. (1985) The Input Hypothesis. London:Longman.
Krashen, S. (1999). Seeking a role for grammar. A review of some recent studies.
Foreign Language Annals 32: 245-257.
Lenneberg, E. (1970) The biological foundations of language. In M. Lester (ed).
Readings in Applied Transformational Grammar. New York: Holt,
Rinehard and Winston.
McMorrow, M. (2005) English language teaching in the movies. The Essential
Teacher 2, 2: 20-22.
Myles, F. (2004). From data to theory: The over-representation of linguistic
knowledge in SLA. Transactions of the Philological Society 102:139-168.
Myles, F. (2005). The emergence of morphosyntax in French L2. In J-M. Dewaele (ed.)
Focus on French as a foreign language:Multidisciplinary Approaches. Clevedon:
Multilingual Matters. pp. 88-113.
Piaget, J. (1978) The Development of Thought: Equilibration of Cognitive Structures.
Oxford:Blackwell.
Pienemann, M. (1998).
Language Processing and Second Language Development:
Processability Theory. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Prévost, P. and L. White (2000). Missing surface inflection or impairment in second
language acquisition. Evidence from tense and agreement. Second Language
Research, 16, 103-134.
Robinson, P. (1995) Attention, memory and the noticing hypothesis. Language
Learning 45:193-215.
Selinker, L. (1972) Interlanguage. IRAL 3:209-231.
Schachter, J. (1989) Testing a proposed universal. In S. Gass and J. Schachter (eds.) Linguistic
Perspectives on Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In P Robinson (ed.) Cognition and Second Language
Instruction. Cambridge:CUP. pp. 3-32.
Schwartz, B. D. and R. Sprouse (1996). L2 cognitive states and the Full Transfer/Full
Access model. Second Language Research, 12, 40-72.
Shameem, N. , K. McDermott, J. Martin-Blaker, and J. Carryer. (2002). A Report on the
Literacy Gains of Low-level and Pre-literate Adult Learners in Literacy Classes.
Executive Summary. National Association of ESOL Home Tutor Schemes Inc School of
English and Applied Linguistics UNITEC Institute of Technology Centre for Refugee
Education, Auckland University of Technology. Auckland New Zealand.
Sharwood Smith, M. (1994). Second Language Learning. London:Longman.
Snow, C. and M. Hoefnagel-Höhle. (1978). The critical age for SLA: Evidence
from second language learning. Child Development 49: 1114-1128.
Vainikka, A., and M. Young-Scholten. (1994). Direct access to X’-Theory. Evidence
from Korean and Turkish adults learning German. In T. Hoekstra and B. D.
Schwartz (eds.) Language Acquisition Studies in Generative Grammar.
Amsterdam: Benjamins. pp. 265-316.
Vainikka, A. and M. Young-Scholten (1996). The early stages in adult L2 syntax:
Additional evidence from Romance speakers. Second Language Research, 12,
140-176.
Vainikka, A. and M. Young-Scholten (1998). Tree growth and morphosyntactic
triggers in adult SLA. In M-L Beck (ed.), The L2 Acquisition of
Morphology (pp. 89-114). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Vainikka, A. and M. Young-Scholten (2002). Restructuring the CP in L2 German. In
B. Skarabela, S. Fish and A. H-J Do (eds.), Proceedings of the XXVI Boston
University Conference on Language Development (pp. 712-722). Somerville,
MA: Cascadilla Press.
Vainikka, A, M. Young-Scholten and C. Ijuin. (2005). Organic Grammar as a measure of
development. TESOL (Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages)
San Antonio, Texas 1 April.
White, L. (1989). Universal Grammar and Second Language Acquisition. Amsterdam:
Benjamins.
White, L. (2003) Universal Grammar and Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press
Yamada-Yamamoto, A. (1993). The acquisition of English syntax by a Japanesespeaking child: With special emphasis on the VO-sequence acquisition. In J.
Clibbens and B. Pendleton (eds.) Proceedings of the Child Language Seminar.
University of Plymouth. pp. 109-120.
Appendix
Scene 1
Official: purpose of your visit?
Viktor: Ingleski mean Novoxx York.
Thurman: What exactly are you doing in the USA?
Viktor: Yellow taxi cab.
Please take me 161 Lexington. Ramada Inn.
Thurman: You’re staying at the Ramada Inn?
Viktor: Keep the change.
Thurman: Krakozhia is under new leadership.
Viktor: Krakozhia. (smiles)
Thurman: You are at this time unacceptable.
Viktor: Unacceptable.
Frank: Do you know anyone in New York?
Viktor: Yes. Yes. (Shows the address.) 161 Lexington
Frank: (to Thurman) Have we found an interpreter? No. Ok. (to Viktor) I understand you speak a
little English.
Viktor: Yes.
Frank: I hope you don’t mind if I eat. (Explains the situation in Krakozhia.) This apple represents
the liberal rebels.
Viktor: Big apple.
Frank: (He takes Viktor’s passport and says something about Krakozhia.)
Viktor: Krakozhia.
Frank: (Says something more).
Viktor: Big Apple tour include (repeats a memorized list)
Where do I buy the Nike shoes?
Frank: You have fallen through a small crack in the system.
Viktor: I am crack?
Frank: I’m going to sign a release form. You’ll be a free man in here.
Viktor: Free. Thank you.
Thurman: America is closed.
Viktor: America closed. America closed. What I do?
Viktor: Please help.
Telephone. Telephone. Telephone. Please. Please.
Gupta: Do you have an appointment? You must make an appointment.
I have an opening Tuesday?
Viktor: Tuesday. Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday.
Scenes 2/3
Viktor: Light green.
I give you light greeen.
Unacceptable.
Viktor: (to Gupta trying to retrieve his food vouhers) Hello.
9.30 food document trash.
Tuesday.
Frank: (Explains to Viktor that has an inspection coming up, relating to a promotion and wants to
get rid of him. He tells Viktor how he can get out when the security guards change.)
Viktor: Late. Late. Five Minutes.
So America not closed.
Frank: (watching Viktor realising he’s been watched by a cctv): What’s he doing, praying? Do
they pray at noon?
Viktor: I wait.
Scene 4
Amelia: (Breaks her heel; converses with Viktor.)
Viktor: This belong you?
See the wet floor?
That you.
Gate 24.
For you, Pay Less Shoes. Second Floor.
Scene 5
Viktor: (Has figured out how to get money for food by returning luggage carts.) Keep the
change.
Viktor: (to kids sitting on a cart) Go, go.
Good. Good.
Bye bye.
. (Somehow he has learned the Roman alphabet).
Scene 6
Viktor: You, you have two stamp.
One red, one green.
So I have chance go New York.
50-50.
Scene 7 /8
Enrique: (wants information on the immigration clerk Viktor has been filling out forms for.)
Viktor: What deal?
What you want know?
I do this.
Viktor to Delores: What mean wild stallion?
You like food.
My friend drive the food.
You like the Rockettes?
Viktor to Enrique: She say one thing very important.
Need XXX mous-tard.
So she go to conventions.
Viktor to Delores: Officer Tores, you have choose man with money or
man with love.
What is choose?
Viktor to Enrique: She catch him.
Eat shit, eat shit, eat shit.
One man. Two womens.
Enrique to Viktor: You say ‘he cheats’, not ‘eat shit’!
Viktor to Delores: Have you been ever in the love?
It’s a man of misery.
Delores: Mystery, not misery.
Viktor: No, misery.
He’s so sick.
He’s in love.
Scene 9
Frank: Food?
Viktor: No. No food.
I stuffed.
Frank: (explains his latest plan to get Viktor to claim asylum).
Viktor: So I go New York City?
Fear.
From what?
So I answer one question, go to New York City tonight.
Frank: Do you at this time have any fear of returning to your own country?
Viktor: No.
(Frank rephrases his question to produce an even more complicated one.)
Viktor: On Tuesdays.
I hate Tuesdays.
Is home.
I’m not ‘fraid from home.
So I go New York City now?
Ok, I’m afraid from ghosts, Dracula. Wolfmens. Sharks.
Scene 10
Viktor: Why you do this?
Viktor: (after eavesdropping) Wait. Wait. Wet floor.
One men. Two womens. Crowded
This men ask you.
Why, why he need hassle?
Amelia: Headed for home?
Viktor (looking at the flight monitor): I am delayed.
I have beeper.
Amelia: You like Italian food? Canneloni? Grab a cab?
Viktor: I can’t go out.
With you.
Viktor: Nadia, in New York restaurant what cost is canneloni?
Nadia: 20 bucks.
Viktor: dollars?
Nadia: two people, 40 dollars.
Scene 11
Viktor: Yes, Cliff.
I wait for your call the whole day.
Scene 12/13
Poker player: What’s in the can?
Viktor: This is jazz.
No. Is jazz.
Viktor: So would we share the panties?
(Cher’s purported panties from Lost and Found as poker currency.)
Scene 14
Amelia: Are you coming or going?
Viktor: Maybe he need glasses.
To read words on bottle.
Amelia: Hey. There you go.
Viktor: There you go.
Amelia: (Keeps talking; Viktor comprehend little.)
Viktor: Ok lunch.
With you?
Amelia: (Gets paged.)
Viktor: You’re not sick.
Amelia: I have to go.
Viktor: I have to stay.
Amelia: Story of my life.
Viktor: Me, too.
Scene 15
Viktor: I help you. Why?
Viktor: He say he bring the medicine for his father.
To Canada.
Viktor: He did not know that he need document.
No one say to him that he need document.
Viktor: Goat. Goat. Medicine is for goat.
Frank: He said that?
Viktor: Krakozhia name for ‘father’ sound like goat.
I make mistake.
Viktor: He love that goat.
Frank: (later in his office) What’s in the can of peanuts?
Viktor: A promise.
Viktor: You don’t like fish.
Scene 16
Viktor: When she come back?
Viktor buys a new suit and waits for Amelia.
Viktor: Would you like to get a little bite? Bite to eat? Canneloni?
Bite to eat (practicing). Bite to eat (repeats, faster and faster)
Viktor: (To Gupta) You ever been married?
Viktor: You killed policeman?
Viktor: So you never go home?
Viktor: What if United State catch you?
They deport you.
Amelia: (Arrives, comments on his suit).
Viktor: Hugo Boss. On sale. $149.99
Viktor: Amelia, would you like to have little bite food tonight?
Amelia: What time?
Viktor: Dinner time.
Viktor: (later, over dinner): I care.
History is truth.
Viktor. So. I was 39 once.
Viktor: You can switch off pager.
Viktor: I live here. In terminal. Gate 67.
Is home like you.
They tell me to wait.
I don’t wait for meeting.
Is ok.
I understand.
So when do you come back?
Amelia: 13 days.
Viktor: I will be here.
You know what Napolean gave Josephine when he went Bavaria?
I will show you 13 days from now.
Scene 17
Viktor: He waits for you to answer. At Sbaro.
Delores: I have to work.
Viktor: He’ll wait.
Scene 18
Viktor: I did not lie.
Maybe you see the man the way you want see the man.
Viktor: Amelia, you know what Napolean gives to Josephine when he win Bavaria?
I show you.
Viktor: Should shoot big water up the ceiling.
Viktor: I show you. My father.
This is jazz.
My father see this photo in Hungarian newspaper.
Then he wait.
My father wait 40 years.
And they all sign names.
They all write their names and send my father.
All but not one. Benny Golson.
My father die before XXX
I keeped promise.
I promise I will go New York.
Scene 19
Viktor: Amelia. You hear?
Please come. Come.
Viktor: I go New York.
Your friend do this for me?
Why he do this for me?
Viktor: I no more unacceptable.
I go New York.
I go New York City now.
I will go home.
Leave them alone.
I will go.
The plane is on time.
Scene 20
Viktor: Taxi!
Driver: Where you go? (He’s Albanian)
Viktor: 161 Lexington.
Please take the Van Wyck Expressway to Queenshore Bridge. It’s faster than XXX.
Driver: When you come New York?
Viktor: Thursday.
Hotel Clerk: Are you checking in?
Viktor: No, I don’t check in.
Viktor: You are Benny Golson.
Viktor: Taxi.
I am going home.