Second Language Acquisition and Interlanguage: Understanding Learner Strategies and Errors

Second Language Acquisition (SLA) refers to the complex, often subconscious processes through which learners develop the ability to understand and use linguistic structures in a second language (L2). This process enables learners to encode and decode messages within specific social, cultural, and economic contexts. As Rod Ellis (1994) asserts, “the main goal of SLA research is to characterize learners’ underlying knowledge of the L2, i.e., to describe and explain their competence” (p. 13). A critical aspect of SLA is understanding the interlanguage (IL) system that learners create, which serves as a bridge between their native language (L1) and the target language.

Generalization of Errors in Interlanguage

Analyzing the data provided reveals patterns of learner errors that are consistent with the characteristics of interlanguage. These errors include examples like “Soccer is the most common sporting” and “After finished my college studied, I went to my country.” Such forms suggest a generalization strategy where learners apply incorrect grammatical structures or lexical forms to new contexts. For instance, in the second example, the learner uses “finished” and “studied” improperly as if they function together to convey past actions, indicating a misunderstanding of verb conjugation and noun formation. This aligns with the “misinformation errors” category described by Dulay, Burt, and Krashen (1982), where learners incorrectly use morphemes or syntactic structures.

One plausible interlanguage generalization is overgeneralization, where learners extend rules of the L2 to contexts where they do not apply. For example, in “Doctors have the right to removed it from him,” the learner misuses the infinitive “removed,” applying it as if it were the correct past participle. This reflects a cognitive strategy of applying familiar patterns from L1 or previously learned L2 rules to novel contexts. As Dulay, Burt, and Krashen (1982) explain, learners construct subconscious rules to make sense of the input they encounter.

Strategies for Lexical Use

Learners appear to employ several strategies to manage lexical gaps in their interlanguage. These strategies include:

1. Paraphrasing: Learners create alternative expressions to convey meaning, as seen in “About two hours driving eastern from Bangkok,” where “driving eastern” substitutes for “driving east.” While incorrect, this demonstrates an effort to approximate the intended meaning.
2. Inventing New Forms: Examples like “There is a night for asleep” suggest the creation of novel phrases to express ideas when standard expressions are unknown. These invented forms reflect an attempt to convey meaning despite limited vocabulary.

Such strategies indicate that learners actively engage with the language, using creative construction to organize and produce linguistic output. This aligns with the interlanguage theory articulated by Selinker (1972), which posits that learners develop a separate linguistic system that evolves as they test hypotheses about the L2.

Additional Information to Test Hypotheses

To further analyze the patterns and strategies evident in these errors, additional information about the learners would be invaluable. Specifically:

1. Motivational Factors: Understanding whether learners are driven by intrinsic or extrinsic motivations could clarify their engagement with the L2. Gardner and Lambert (1972) distinguish between integrative motivation (interest in the culture and people of the L2) and instrumental motivation (practical goals like career advancement).
2. Personality Traits: Traits such as extroversion or tolerance for ambiguity could influence learners’ willingness to take risks in language use and, consequently, their rate of progress.
3. Social Context: Insights into the learners’ exposure to the L2 in authentic settings could help determine the influence of social and situational variables on their interlanguage development.

Relation to Theoretical Concepts

The observed errors and strategies relate closely to key concepts in SLA. The phenomenon of fossilization, where interlanguage errors become fixed, is particularly relevant. Selinker (1972) identifies fossilization as the persistence of non-native forms despite continued exposure to the L2. For example, the recurrent misuse of gerunds or past participles in the provided data could signify fossilized structures if these errors resist correction over time.

Additionally, sociolinguistic theories, such as Schumann’s (1978) acculturation model, highlight the role of social and psychological distance in SLA. Learners who experience significant distance from the L2 culture may limit their use of the L2 to basic functions, which can hinder progress and lead to simplified interlanguage forms. Similarly, Giles and Byrne’s (1982) accommodation theory underscores how social interaction and adaptability influence language acquisition.

Conclusion

The analysis of learner errors illustrates the dynamic and systematic nature of interlanguage. Learners use strategies such as overgeneralization, paraphrasing, and lexical invention to navigate the challenges of L2 acquisition. However, these processes also risk fossilization if not addressed effectively. To support learners’ progress, educators must consider motivational, personality, and social factors that shape their interlanguage. By integrating theoretical insights from SLA research, teachers can develop targeted interventions that enhance learners’ linguistic competence and foster meaningful engagement with the L2.

References

Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford University Press.

Gardner, R. C., & Lambert, W. E. (1972). Attitudes and motivation in second language learning. Newbury House Publishers.

Selinker, L. (1972). Interlanguage. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 10(3), 209-231.

ZhaoHong Han, (2004). Fossilization in Adult Second Language Acquisition. Multilingual Matters.

Dulay, H., Burt, M., & Krashen, S. (1982). Language two. Oxford University Press.

Tarone, E. (2006). Interlanguage. In K. Brown (Ed.), Encyclopedia of language and linguistics (2nd ed., pp. 747-752). Elsevier.