Many questions remain regarding how and why L2 learners develop (or not) sufficiently detailed and idiomatic representations across various fundamental areas of grammar, and what roles various kinds of context and type of instruction can play in supporting or weakening success along the way. In the end, despite our incomplete knowledge, the study of interlanguage offers a valuable window into the recognition that the emergent competence of L2 users is shaped by the same systematicity and variability that shape all other forms of human language learning. Such recognition can help us combat deep-held views of learner language as a defective version of the target language and of errors as the sign of dangerous habits that need to be eradicated.
And, indeed, SLA has a distinguished lineage of empowering statements by interlanguage researchers to this effect. Since the inception of the field, some have argued that language learners’ errors are a source of insights about the processes of second language learning (Corder, 1967; Selinker, 1972), others have called for the study of L2 development in its own right (Huebner, 1979, 1983), and yet others have warned against the fallacy of taking native speakers as an interpretive benchmark of learner language (Bley-Vroman, 1983). Yet, these good intentions and signs of enlightment have not been enough, and many if not most of the studies we have reviewed in this chapter suffer from what can be described as a ‘teleological’ view of interlanguage (Ortega and Byrnes, 2008, p. 287). That is, wittingly or unwittingly, SLA researchers often portray development as a transitional state that is (or should be) ever changing towards the target. Implied in this construal is also an idealized monolingual native speaker, who is held to be the ultimate yardstick of linguistic success. Harsh critiques have been levelled against this state of affairs. From a sociolinguistic prism, Sridhar (1994) suggested that SLA researchers need ‘a reality check’ in their silence about postcolonial and multilingual contexts for L2 learning all over the world, where the norm and model of nativeness makes no sense. From an educational stance, Seidlhofer (2001) lamented the conceptual gap between, on the one hand, the recognition that the
Summary 141
native speaker is not the point of reference for L2 learning in many contexts of international communication, which is carried out almost exclusively among non- native speakers and, on the other hand, the inability to let that recognition permeate research programmes.
From within SLA, criticisms are also slowly mounting. From a psycholinguistic perspective, Cook (1991, 2008) has long argued that the emergent competence of bilinguals can hardly be expected to become isomorphic with the competence of monolinguals. From a concept-oriented perspective, Klein (1998) has accused researchers of treating ‘learners’ utterances as deviations from a certain target, instead of genuine manifestations of underlying language capacity’ (p. 527) and he has identified this deficit orientation as the culprit for lack of disciplinary impact. From an emergentist and complexity theory perspective, Larsen-Freeman (2006) has expressed doubts on the value of past interlanguage findings because they are based on the metaphor of ‘a developmental ladder’ (p. 594). She sees a solution for- ward in her proposed view of languages (whether L2 or L1) as dynamic and self- organizing systems, ever adapting to changing contexts.
In an ethics-centred reflection about the value of instructed SLA research, I predicted that ‘the content of SLA constructs of high currency, such as
interlanguage, target language, and fossilization, will undoubtedly need to be
revised once the monolingual native speaker is no longer held as the legitimate model for L2 learning’ (Ortega, 2005, p. 433). It is yet to be seen if sufficient future developments, whether in the emergentist direction envisioned in recent calls, or in other innovative directions, will help make it possible to study learner language in its own right and to overcome the analytical and conceptual pitfalls that arise when we equate L2 development with monolingual development.
6.18 SUMMARY
● This chapter focuses on the study of learner language from the perspective of interlanguage studies, a tradition that emphasizes general cognitive explanations for the development of L2 morphology and syntax and draws on evidence from both experimental and free production data.
● ‘Interlanguage’, a term coined by Selinker in 1972, is the language system that each learner constructs at any given point in development; it is a natural language characterized by systematicity and variability; and it is more than the sum of the target input and the L1 influence.
● A family of usage-based and emergentist theories offers promising explanations for language learning and posits that: (a) language learning is driven by experience and induction of generalizations; (b) important influences on development arise from frequency and salience in the input and from attention and categorization processes in the learner; (c) variability is central to development; and (d) language learning must be explained by the simultaneous interaction of multiple forces.
● According to usage-based accounts, rules emerge from experience as follows. Learners register frequently encountered form–meaning pairings and implicitly tally their frequencies, distributions and contexts; upon repeated encounters, memorized formulas eventually give way to the abstracting of low-scope patterns; given sufficient experience and favourable conditions, low-scope patterns can give rise to abstract constructions.
● Aided by memory and experience, four interlanguage processes are at work as the internal grammar develops: simplification, overgeneralization, restructuring and U-shaped behaviour. Ge’s acquisition of the English article the (Huebner, 1983) offers a good illustration of all four processes. ● Interlanguage change is always systematic (a matter of development), but
also non-linear (a matter of accuracy) and unevenly paced (a matter of rate). All three dimensions of development, accuracy and rate are necessary to jointly characterize interlanguage change over time. Jorge’s acquisition of English negation (Cancino et al., 1978; Stauble, 1978) illustrates the three dimensions at work.
● Within a year and a half of immersion in the L2 environment, most naturalistic adult learners will develop a rudimentary but systematic and fully communicative system, called the Basic Variety by Klein and Perdue (1997). After some more time, and probably pushed by the need to communicate complex messages, many but not all of them will grammaticalize resources and develop morphology and subordination. ● We know that a set of English morphemes is mastered at 80 per cent or 90
per cent accuracy levels in a predictable order, which is at least in good part explained by the combined frequency and salience of these morphemes in the input.
● We know that in English, Spanish and many other target languages, the emergence of tense and aspect morphology is patterned and strongly shaped by the semantics of the verb. The details of how this happens have been spelled out in the Aspect Hypothesis (Andersen and Shirai, 1996) and supported in many studies and across many L2s.
● Relativization is another area in which development has proved to be systematic rather than random. Learners of a wide number of target languages are seen to be able to relativize in more frequent and less marked positions (e.g. subject, direct object) before they can do so in less frequent and more marked positions (e.g. object of preposition).
● Several word order phenomena across target languages, including German and English, have been mapped along cumulative developmental sequences that describe how the full repertoire of word order possibilities in a language emerges in a systematic but gradual and non-linear fashion.
Annotated suggestions for further reading 143
● Fossilization is a technical term used to refer to cases when L2 development comes to a seemingly permanent stop. For some researchers, fossilization is the inevitable end result of all L2 learning; for other researchers, fossilization is a premature cessation of learning that affects some learners but not others. There are several studies of learners who allegedly fossilized (e.g. Alberto, Patty, Geng and Fong, and quite a few others not mentioned in this chapter). However, conceptual and methodological difficulties make fossilization a contested construct that must be regarded with caution. ● The value of instruction is doubted by researchers who endorse a nativist
and modular view of language learning, but it is supported by researchers who endorse a general cognitive view of language learning, and who believe in the possibility of an interface between explicit and implicit knowledge. ● Instruction cannot override development, but it has been shown to result in
clear benefits in the areas of accuracy and rate of learning for both syntax and morphology.
● A great challenge will be to find ways of studying learner language in its own right, rather than as an imperfect version of the target grammar; it is yet to be seen if future innovations will help overcome teleological notions of development as convergence towards the representations assumed of an ideal monolingual native speaker.
6.19 ANNOTATED SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER READING
To gain a historical understanding of learner language research, it is worth reading the seminal articles by Corder (1967) and Selinker (1972), and the more methodologically oriented but incisive overview by Long and Sato (1984). A number of edited collections are also standard citations and contain great historical wisdom in the individual studies they feature: Davies et al. (1984), Eisenstein (1989) and Eubank et al. (1995). It is also important to read about the ESF and the ZISA project, because both have made a profound impact on the study of learner language (see the references cited in sections 6.8 and 6.12). If you are interested in how the notion of interlanguage has been applied to other areas of language besides morphology and syntax, you can read some of the papers in Ioup and Weinberger (1987) for phonology; and the reviews by Kasper and Schmidt (1996) and Bardovi- Harlig (1999) for pragmatics. You can avail yourself of a short cut to the present day in the study of learner language if you read the contributions in two 2008 special issues in the Modern Language Journal and Lingua, guest-edited by Kees de Bot and Roger Hawkins, respectively.
One of the most powerful ways of understanding learner language is to read qualitative case studies of linguistic development across a variety of learners and contexts. For this reason, I strongly recommend you read some of the classic primary studies. If your interest lies with school-aged children acquiring an
additional language, much can be learned from reading about the acquisition of English by Nora (Wong Fillmore, 1979), Jorge and some other children and adults studied by Cancino et al. (1978), Tai and Thanh (Sato, 1990), or the ten Mandarin L1 children studied by Jia and Fuse (2007, complemented by the very interesting demographic and social information reported in Jia and Aaronson, 2003). You can also read about Anthony (Andersen, 1984b) acquiring gender in Spanish and about efforts to teach German word order to Teresa and other children (Pienemann, 1989). For adult acquisition, the gallery of learners investigated is also highly informative. Some adult learners appear to struggle with going beyond basic competencies, such as Alberto (Schumann, 1976), Wes (Schmidt, 1983), Ge (Huebner, 1983) and also JDB, whom we mentioned in section 3.10 of Chapter 3 (Duff, 1993; and you can read the interesting additional information about JDB in Duff, 2008, pp. 2–17). Other adults retain some non-target-like solutions in their interlanguages amidst very high levels of competence, such as Patty (Lardier, 2007) and Geng and Fong (Han, 2000, 2006). Lest you forget some cases of amazing success, remember to read again about Julie (Ioup et al., 1994; see Chapter 2, section 2.2).
Finally, if you are interested in getting some research experience with interlanguage, two excellent books that can guide you in your efforts are Ellis and Barkhuizen (2005) and Gass and Mackey (2007).For an advanced discussion of conceptual issues surrounding the collection, analysis and interpretation of evidence about learner language, you can read Norris and Ortega (2003).