Learner Language in
Korean Classrooms:
Implications for
teaching
Elaine Tarone
University of Minnesota
Am. Assoc of Teachers of Korean
2004
Learner Language: A Brief Personal
History




1968, Edinburgh University - Scotland - Diploma in Applied
Linguistics. On faculty: Larry Selinker, S.P. Corder, Alan Davies.
Fellow student: H.G. Widdowson
Times: Contrastive Analysis (Robt Lado, Charles Fries)
“ALL learning difficulties of ALL second-language learners are
caused by native language transfer”
Revolution: let’s study learners’ language!
1. Error Analysis: “Do errors LOOK like they’re all caused by
native language transfer, or something else?”
2. Language Acquisition Device: “do adult second-language
learners have a ‘built-in syllabus’ similar to that of children acquiring
their first language?” (Corder)
For first time in history (that we know), people interested in teaching
second language stopped talking about what TEACHERS do, and
began to look systematically at what second-language LEARNERS
do, and know, and think about the learning enterprise. SLA research
was born.
Different Views of Learner Language
 S.P.
Corder: Transitional competence.
Learner has a “built-in syllabus” that he
follows no matter what the teacher’s
syllabus is. Input does not equal intake.
 Larry Selinker: Adult second-language
learners do not have the same language
acquisition device children do. We know
this because:
… second-language learning is so
difficult for adults (cf Selinker 1972)

While every young child acquires a native
languages perfectly, and without instruction,

… adults never acquire a second language
perfectly, and seem to need instruction.

The result of early child acquisition is a perfect
native language; the result of adult SLA is
always an interlanguage.
Interlanguage is defined by Selinker
(1972) as:

The unique linguistic system evidenced when an
adult second-language learner attempts to USE
the language to express meanings.
 This linguistic system is created from
generalizations made by the learner. It is not just
the native language rules and not just the target
language rules. Learner generates and tests
hypotheses.
 A fossilized system: never develops to point of
identity with the target language. Selinker felt
this was because of cognitive loss, with age, of
the language acquisition device.
Hallmarks of the Interlanguage Claim




Applies to adults, not children.
Characteristics derive in part from the native language,
in part from the target language (overgeneralization of
target language rules), in part from instruction, and in
part from strategies (communication strategies and
learning strategies)
Learner makes interlingual identifications (hypotheses
about what is the same and what is different across
languages)
Fossilization is central and inevitable, for adults
What is the target of interlanguage
development?
The learner’s target is not necessarily native
speaker competence in the target language.
 Interlanguage doesn’t always develop linearly; it
could be influenced by more than one target.
 The target of learning is selected by the learner.
The target might be the learner’s model of Indian
English, or of Hong Kong English.
 Whatever the learner’s target, the interlanguage
hypothesis suggests that the adult learner will
not achieve it because the LAD is gone.

English (L1)-Korean(L2) interlanguage?
 Let’s
consider some features of
interlanguage in turn:
1. IL is formed by learner generalizations
that come from many sources
2. IL is only used when learner expresses
meaning
3. Learners need form-focused feedback
when they use IL
4. IL fossilizes
Examples of English-Korean IL
 Hye-Sook:
Give Korean examples (?!)
 Papers at this conference:





Jin Hong Kim, on Korean learner corpora
K. Seon Jeon, on L2 lexical learning
Helen Kim, on processing transfer and strategies
Yoo Sang Rhee, on speech acts produced by Korean
learners
Jeonyi Lee, conversation patterns of learners of
Korean
Data for this presentation

Journals of two American learners of Korean at a
large Midwest University (ER and TF), who
wrote down their reflections about their learning
of Korean, in journals addressed to their teacher,
Jihyeon Jeon (1995, 1996)
 I’d like to identify (w/Hye-Sook’s help) some
features of Korean-English interlanguage that
these learners refer to in their journals, and …
 … consider, with you, what classroom teachers
can learn from these learners’ reflections.
1. The learner creates his or her own IL rules and
generalizations. IL is a separate linguistic system: not
the native language system and not the target
language system.



These generalizations are created by the learner,
sometimes but not always based on native language
rules. Adults do not transfer ALL their old grammar and
pronunciation patterns into their new language.
Adults do not immediately produce the EXACT grammar
or pronunciation of the new language, sounding exactly
the way native speakers do. Their learner rules may be
over-generalized parts of Korean rules they’ve learned.
Adults combine elements of their native language,
elements of the new language, and other elements when
they try to speak the new language.
TF on interlanguage generalizations (Jihyeon Jeon,
1995, 1996)
I still, though, feel the need to find generalization when there can
be. Otherwise I f eel bogged down by the sense that I have to learn
every possible situation I co uld be in, and memorize the c orrect
respond to that situation. (I stress that I want to find generalizations if
there can be any. If not, then I w on't need them, I will just have to
memorize.) For example, if there any subtle things in common
between the use of
-¥Ÿ•Ì
in V.S. ¥Ÿ•Ì
šœ¥Ÿ
and
V.S. + ¥Ÿ•Ì
«œ¥Ÿ ?
If so, can I usually expect other cases of multiple verbs where that
same subtlety exists to also use ¥Ÿ•Ì
in connecting verbs ?
Another case is that the s tructure
V.S. +
æ² / æÓ / ø© •ª ¿œ ¿÷¥Ÿ
made a l ot more sense, felt
more comfortable, was easier to remember, and gave me a slight
insight into the logic of Korean language after we talked about V.S. +
æ² / æÓ /ø© ¥Ÿ and I realized that the first structure •ª
is also probably derived from ¥Ÿ (it also helped to understand
¿œ as well.)
TF on Korean word structure (part 1)
I was trying to read a bil ingual copy of ƒ·¡„
²œ¡„
, just to
practice reading in «—±€ . A lot of the grammatical structures I
didn't know, so I could understood bits and pieces of it. But parts that
I thought I understood a little often turned out that I didn't. Part of this,
I r ealized, came from my seeing, at the beginning of a word, for
instance the syllable ¿œ , and I would think this has something to do
w/work, or t he sun, or some such meaning of t he word ¿œ . As it
happened, ¿œ w as just the first syllable of some longer word. Of
course, I wouldn't do this in German or English. Part of it is knowing
that post position particle and other such grammatical structures are
often attached directly to a wo rd in Korean, and so longer words can
sometimes be b roken down into constituent particles. But even
though German often uses long compound words, I would never
assume to do this w/a word I didn't recognize.
Or English for that matter. I wouldn't assume that the word manage
has anyt hing to do with a man or his age, quite apart from the fact
that know this already. But English isn't as often structured that way
anyway.
TF on Korean word structure (part 2)
But I think what causes me to do this in Korean more has to do with
the structure of the writing as well - the grouping of letters into
individually, immediately recognizable syllables. It is as if somewhere
in the back of my mind. I have convinced myself that Korean is made
of several thousand individual syllables w/distinct meanings, and
which are combined into words in a way that combines the meaning
of the constituent syllables - in a way like Orwell's New speak. Suc h
as wh en I compared ¿žžƒ
and ¿žæ«
to myself and thought
that žƒ meant food, æ« meant music, and ¿ž must be some sort
of particle meaning "general".
Korean/English interlanguage: Native language
transfer
Errors in phonology due to native language transfer
(Jeon, p.c.):
1. pronouncing the consonant sounds (e.g. ka (with a
little aspiration), kka (without aspiration), kha (with
more aspiration), etc.)
 2. pronouncing vowel sounds (particularly, vowel length)
 3. having appropriate rhythm in the language. Korean
sounds ‘flatter’ than English because every syllable in a
sentence is more or less equally stressed, whereas
English sounds rhythmic because some syllables are
more stressed than others. Americans try to use English
rhythm patterns in Korean.
Korean/English Interlanguage: Native
language transfer
Syntactic errors due to native language transfer (Jeon,
p.c.):
 1. Not using subject markers and object markers (which
clarify meaning in a Korean sentence) appropriately.
 2. Supplying sentence parts that are not required in
context. Since Korean language is based on highcontext culture, whenever they are understood from the
context, the subject and the object of the sentence are
omitted. On the other hand, the subject and object are
required sentence parts in an English sentence. And
thus, English speakers often use the subject and the
object even though they are not required in context for
Korean.
TF on pronouncing Korean vowels: sliding between
two Korean sounds (not English transfer)
Between meeting w/¡§øÓ
this afternoon and š¹
º±ªð¥‘
th is evening, I th ink I a m able to clarify a fe w things
about my feelings of i nadequacy regarding Korean. When talking
¡§øÓ
about our recent lessons, I mentioned the - •Ø /-¿••Ø
structure. He thought I was saying
-Œ /-¿Œ . Although I
don't think I have too much trouble pronouncing ø¿ in most cases,
my æÓ seems to slide back and forth between æ² and ø¿ , as if
the latter two are solid objects with a li quid æÓ floating between
them. Consequently, I n ever feel completely comfortable saying
anything with æÓ i n it. Lately, out o f fear of it sounding too æ² , I
have &&&&&&&ed heavily toward ø¿ . So I tend to sound like -Œ
instead of •Ø . T his confuses others, and sometimes even me - I
think that was I was confused w/ ¿Ã ªÛ¦Ž
last week when he
said •Ø , I partially thought I heard ŽÛ .
TF on separating sounds from meaning in Korean
I discovered something rather unusual about how I pe rceive Korean - perhaps how I
perceive it, I should say. With English, I do not se parate a word - a series of sounds from its meaning. The word + meaning are one and same - the meaning is concrete in
the word. And yet w/Korean - most definitely w/single words, or when spoken by us
students, so that the inflection doesn't sound particularly language related - I am more
able to make that separation. It sounds a t times like a series of phonemes with which I
equate some con ceptual meaning. So a new wo rd does not strike me as a word I don't
understand, but a phoneme s tring with which I equate no meaning - more melodious
than linguistic (Actually, I think in a way I wou ld hear native Korean speakers in this way,
too.) So hea ring some Korean that I know on ly a few words of wou ld sound more like a
vocalize, or an opera - an occasional glimpse of meaning interspersed with a lot of
music. Hmn. Weird.
TF on length in vowels and consonants
Ever since you t old me early this summer that some of my
vowels were too short (especially, after ¿Ø»Ò
ke pt mistaking my
±• fo r ±š b ecause my øÏ was so short), I've been working on
keeping my vowels a m ore comfortable length (although not always
successfully). One reason I ten d to shorten the vowels is that I
naturally talk too fast - another is that I want to get my Korean speed
up a li ttle so that I won't lose track of w hat I am trying to say it ( a
habit I have even in English.) But I also have had si milar trouble
several times with consonants as well - par ticularly involving ƒ¹ .
The pronunciation of Œ and ¿ðŽÛµµ
are often confusing
to K orean friends because my pronunciation of the two §© together
is too short - at least, I th ink that's the problem; when I listen to them
repeat the word, that is the only difference I hear. ( I don't seem to
have that problem w/ §§ in 滕Á or æ¾¥œ
for some reason.)
But even single §© gives me problems sometimes, which makes me
wonder if I am too loose with my pronunciation of it. You and some
people like ¿Ø»Ò
don't have trouble with my p ronunciation of i t,
but perhaps its because you are used t o it as an American
pronunciation. But I want to improve it.
Implications for Teaching

Expect learners to draw on multiple sources for their
generalizations and rules: English, Korean, instructional
rules, personal perceptions and preferences, strategies.

Expect learners’ rule systems to change over time
according to their own internal syllabus. Be patient; input
does not equal intake.

Teach inductively: give students examples of Korean
target structures and ask them to create generalizations;
then show them the correct rule.

Have interested students keep journals for you to read,
so you can understand their perspective, and the
generalizations they are making about Korean.
2. Interlanguage system is revealed when
learner tries to express meaning

We only see the the language the learner has
really internalized (IL) when he tries to express
an original meaning in the new language.
 We do not see this when she is repeating
something after the teacher, or copying what is
on the board, or reciting memorized sequences.
Such activities do not draw on the interlanguage
rules.
 Can such activities help the interlanguage
develop? These learners don’t think so …
ER on copying from the board

I’m finding that we have to do a lot of copying
from the board in this class. I don’t really like it,
because it takes a lot of time. … Last week Li
had us practice a little reading selection.
However, she “gave” us the reading selection by
writing it on the board first, and then we had to
copy it down. So, is that legitimate “reading?”
“copying?”
ER on copying grammar rules
 [The
teacher] simply stops talking, turns
her back to us, and starts writing [grammar
rules on the board]. We’re expected to
copy it all down, and to learn it that way.
She will, then, when most of us are
finished writing, orally talk through it again,
and that is when she’ll go through
examples to illustrate what we’re learning.
Usually, the best part of the lesson is the
time spent on examples.
TF on value of meaningful use of Korean interlanguage
Afterwards, however, we w ent for dinner to «—±š•¸
.I
suddenly became much more comfortable speaking some Korean
than I have ever been. (Mayb e it was the Ò ˆ¦È
). Most of
what I sa id consisted of sh ort sentences or question, or one word
remarks (e.g. •Êæ²æ æ
­øˆ
has stomach problems, so ¥œ š´
was said a lot.) It might have been easier for me because I
am not around these two women very much, and so they don't expect
much of my Korean - in fact, they are amazed that I can s ay anything
- and also they don't laugh. While driving home, I wa s able to give
•Êæ²æ æ
directions almost entirely in Korean from Riverside on.
The nice thing was that I didn't hav e to think - exc ept for my usual
dyslexia concerning left and right, from which I suffer even in Eng.
(but even here, I didn't have to decide "left and then of the Korean
word - I just thought of which hand to turn toward and immediately
said ø¼ ¬
)
Implications for teaching
 If
your goal is to have students who can
USE Korean to transmit meaning, then
give them opportunities in the classroom
to practice using the Korean they know to
transmit real meaning (e.g., to tell you or
one another something new, give and
follow directions, etc. using Korean).
 They can do this with you, in front of
class, or in pairs with each other.
3. Students need form-focused feedback
(Doughty & Williams 1998)

Learner notices and responds to implicit and
explicit negative feedback provided when errors
are made in the course of communicating
meaning.

When the learner does this, many researchers
claim that acquisition results. Thus, feedback
(correction) in the midst of communicative
activity is extremely important.
ER on need for feedback

I got my tape back from Park. She only
corrected one sentence of mine for
pronunciation. However, I didn’t clearly
understand what my mistake was. Sometimes I
can’t hear the correct differences between words
and sounds.

I’ve never received any feedback regarding
my writing. The quizzes, too, often seem
random. I never quite know what they are
testing.
Implications for Teaching

Find ways to correct student performance
WHILE they are using Korean to communicate:
* provide explicit correction
* recast errors; ask students to recast each other
* correct student writing and ask for rewrites
* correct students’ pronunciation & make them
practice (have them tape sentences with
pauses between the sentences, listen to the
tapes, and provide correct pronunciations in the
pauses)
4. Interlanguage is fossilized

Adults always stop developing their new
language before they reach their goal (whatever
that is).
 Their grammar and pronunciation and
vocabulary always sound “foreign” to speakers
of the target variety.
TF on pronouncing Korean vowel (pt 2)
Perhaps this æÓ floats around because no matter how I try it every possible fractional differentiation between ø¿ a nd æ² - it
doesn't sound right. In talking to š¹ º±ªð¥‘
tonight I said that
I kn ew I was saying the vowels right. But thinking about it more, I
realize I should probably say that I m ust be saying them right
somewhere, because I try every possibly shading I c an create with
my mouth, voice, etc. But even when I hit on a sound that seems to
right- sounds pretty much the same as I hear from my Korean friends.
It st ill doesn't sound Korean convincingly. ( I don't know how to
explain why it sounds right but still doesn't sound right.) but as I said the shape of the inside of my mouth, my throat, nose, sinuses, etc. all
conspire against being able to sound Korean. I will never sound
Korean to my ears.
Implications for Teaching

Model native behavior in Korean use but be
strategic in what you correct.

Correct first for intelligibility, not 100%
nativeness, in learners’ Korean language use

Encourage students when you see progress
Summary: Teaching Suggestions consistent
with research on learner language
1.
2.
3.
4.
Teach inductively: give students examples of target
structures, invite them to make generalizations, then
tell them the correct rule.
Give students opportunities to practice using the
Korean they know to transmit real meaning: e.g. to tell
you or one another something new, using Korean.
Expect errors to come from several sources: learners’
reliance on English, their overgeneralizations of
Korean rules they’ve learned, and strategies they use.
Find ways to correct student performance in speech
and writing, ideally their performance transmitting
MEANING in Korean.
We need studies on English-Korean
interlanguage

What is the built-in syllabus of Korean L2? What are the
stages of its acquisition?
 What is the role of native language transfer in shaping a
Korean IL?
 What sorts of overgeneralizations of Korean rules do
learners of Korean make?
 What is the role of meaningful use of Korean IL in SLA?
Can IL develop from memorization and copying tasks?
 Does negative feedback in the midst of communicative
activity have an impact on the development of Korean
L2? Can students provide this feedback effectively to
each other?
 Are there learners of Korean L2 whose ILs do not
fossilize?
References





Doughty, C., & Williams, J. (Eds.). (1998). Focus on
Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Jihyeon Jeon (1996). Instructed L2 acquisition and
learners’ motivation, English Teaching, 51(1), p. 59-81.
Jihyeon Jeon Park (1995). Adult learners’ motivation in
learning a non-cognate foreign language, Ph.D. Thesis,
University of Minnesota.
Selinker, L. (1972). Interlanguage. IRAL 10:209-241.
Tarone, E. (1994). Interlanguage. In R. Asher & S.
Simpson (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Language and
Linguistics (Vol. 4, pp. 1715-1719). Oxford: Pergamon.