CA and EA paved the way for Interlanguage theory (IL hereinafter) in . The term ‘Interlanguage’ was first introduced by Selinker ( &). The Interlanguage theory, that assumes that an active and independent learning mind Selinker believes that the evidence for interlanguage can be found. Inter-language Theory Presented to: Ma’am Mehwish. Selinker’s Five Fossilization Process Steps Over-generalization Transfer of.
|Published (Last):||6 November 2009|
|PDF File Size:||9.19 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||14.8 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Interlanguage – Wikipedia
The concise encyclopedia of applied linguistics. Interlanguage viewed language development as a combination of several factors including nature of input, environment, internal processing of the learner, and influence between L1 and L2. Readers are encouraged to study more in-depth to gain a full appreciation of the history, development, and implementation of this theory as it contains an extreme amount of complex information.
Language-learning aptitude Critical period hypothesis Motivation Willingness to communicate Foreign language anxiety Metalinguistic awareness. The learner fossilizes the form instead of correcting it.
Language transfer Linguistic universal Word lists by frequency.
Please help improve this article if you can. The learner is in a limbo state as far as language is concerned interlaanguage it neither mirrors the L1 or L2.
Interlanguage can be variable across different contexts; for example, it may selinkee more accurate, complex and fluent in one domain than in another.
Attrition Classroom research Education Phonology Writing. In accordance with communication accommodation theorylearners may adapt their speech to either converge with, or diverge from, their interlocutor’s usage. Interlanguage is based on the theory that there is a dormant psychological framework in the human brain that is activated when one attempts to learn a second language.
Selinekr example, if an English learner hears sentences beginning with “do you”, they may associate it with being an indicator of a question but not as two separate words.
Learn how your comment data is processed. Those who bring a Chomskyan perspective to second-language acquisition typically regard variability as nothing more than performance errors, and not worthy of systematic inquiry. Fossilization occurs often in adult language learners.
Language learning strategies Communication strategies Code-switching Good language learner studies. International Review of Applied Linguistics. Views Read Edit View history. The learner is still trying to figure out what rules govern the use of alternate forms.
In particular, scholarship in the interlanguage tradition has sought to show that learner languages conform to UG at all stages of development.
It can occur even in motivated learners who are continuously exposed to their L2 or have adequate learning support. Some educators tend to disregard the fossilization aspect of interlanguage, but others tend to recognize that some learners do reach states where learning ceases so fossilization is possible.
Linguistic factors are usually extremely local. The concept of interlanguage is closely related to other types of language, especially creoles and pidgins.
Multilingualism Heritage language Multi-competence.
They may happen to say “What do you doing? November Learn how and when to remove this template message. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Island constraints are based on the concept that there are certain syntactical domains within a sentence that act as phrase boundaries.
For other uses, see Interlanguage disambiguation. Interlanguage theory tried to determine if there was a continuum in the internal grammar of learning additional languages, and through research, resolve if learners acquired L2 in much of the same fashion as L1. This comparison suggests the existence of a separate linguistic system.
Please help improve it by rewriting it in an encyclopedic style.
Selinker’s Interlanguage Theory by Erin Tillman on Prezi
Variability in learner language distinguishes between “free variation”, which has not been shown to be systematically related to accompanying linguistic or social features, and “systematic variation”, which has. The realization that students will interpret information differently should provide some guidance on how instruction of the information should be presented.
The difference is mostly one of variability, as a learner’s fheory is spoken only by the learner and changes frequently as they become more proficient in the language.
However, in the second stage their systems contained the rule that they should use the bare infinitive form to express present action, without a separate rule for the use of “-ing”.
On the other hand, those who approach it from a sociolinguistic or psycholinguistic orientation view variability as an inherent feature of the learner’s interlanguage. This type of variability seems to be most common among beginning learners, and may be entirely absent among the more advanced. This page was last edited on 21 Augustat