To learn a second/foreign language, the learner takes a linguistic journey from his/her mother tongue to the target language and naturally constructs a personal linguistic system in the interim time. This individual system termed ‘interlanguage’ is a single and unique one which is yet to conform to the target language norms and evidently incorporates linguistic deficiencies or errors exhibiting the learner’s current linguistic level and implying what he/she need acquire to reach a standard of the target language. Hence, the present research has been designed to investigate and examine the relevance of the study of the interlanguage of 21 tertiary level students learning English as a foreign language (EFL). To carry out the study, an experimental group consisting of the 21 students and a control group having another 21 students of the same level have been used. Based on the findings, the researcher makes some linguistic and pedagogic recommendations.
Abstract
To learn a second/foreign language, the learner takes a linguistic journey from his/her mother tongue to the target language and naturally constructs a personal linguistic system in the interim time. This individual system termed ‘interlanguage’ is a single and unique one which is yet to conform to the target language norms and evidently incorporates linguistic deficiencies or errors exhibiting the learner’s current linguistic level and implying what he/she need acquire to reach a standard of the target language. Hence, the present research has been designed to investigate and examine the relevance of the study of the interlanguage of 21 tertiary level students learning English as a foreign language (EFL). To carry out the study, an experimental group consisting of the 21 students and a control group having another 21 students of the same level have been used. Based on the findings, the researcher makes some linguistic and pedagogic recommendations.
Keywords
Interlanguage, relevance, teaching EFL, tertiary level
Introduction
A second/foreign language learner takes a linguistic journey from his/her mother tongue to the target language and naturally constructs a personal linguistic system in the interim time. This individual system is termed ‘interlanguage’ (Selinker 1969, 1972), ‘approximative system’ (Nemser 1971), ‘transitional competence’ (Corder 1967), or ‘idiosyncratic dialect’ (Corder 1973). In a narrower sense, interlanguage refers to the intermediate status of the second/foreign language learner’s system between his/her mother tongue and the target language. In a broader sense, it stands for the second/foreign language learner’s present knowledge of the language he/she is learning (Spolsky 1989). In a general sense, interlanguage is defined as ‘the interim grammars constructed by the second-language learners on their way to the target language’ (McLaughlin 1987:60).
According to Selinker (1972), the development of interlanguage depends on five central cognitive processes involved in second/foreign learning - first language transfer, transfer of training, strategies of second/foreign language learning, strategies of second/foreign language communication, and overgeneralization of the target language linguistic material. However, Adjemian (1976) contradicts Selinker (1972), and emphasizes the natural or universal aspects of interlanguage. Adjemian (1976) focuses on the dynamic character of interlanguage systems, that is, their permeability, and maintains that interlanguage is not stable, rather it is always in a state of flux. It signifies that a second/foreign language learner’s language constantly changes and/or develops. In this connection, we could consider Ellis (1994: 352) who clearly postulates ‘these mental grammars are perceived as dynamic and subject to rapid change’. It may happen due to having the linguistic influence of the learner’s first language or due to stretching, distorting or overgeneralization of the rules of the target language by the learner when he/she attempts to generate the intended meaning; or both may occur simultaneously.
That is, interlanguage is an individual, single and unique system (Adjemian 1976) which is yet to conform to the target language norms and evidently incorporates linguistic deficiencies or errors exhibiting the learner’s current linguistic level and implying what he/she need acquire to reach a standard of the target language. Notwithstanding, there exists a substantial degree of uniformity in the characteristics of interlanguage and in the types of errors of various second/foreign language learners. For instance, Bengali speaking learners commit a common error ( and/or make a common mistake) by missing the ‘-s’ to be added to the verb used in a sentence in the simple present tense and having a third person singular subject (Maniruzzaman 2006). Andersen (1978) and Hyltenstam (1977) rightly report the important character of interlanguage that there is individual variability within uniformity.
Furthermore, Tarone (1979) explains interlanguage as a set of styles dependent on the context of use. Research reveals that the utterances of the learner are systematically variable in at least two senses. Firstly, the linguistic context may have a variable impact on the learner’s use of related phonological and syntactic structures. Secondly, the task used for the elicitation of data from the learner may have a variable effect on the learner’s production of related phonological and syntactic structures. Tarone (1979) then concludes that interlanguage speech production varies systematically with the context and elicitation task. Mitchell and Myles (1998:11) consider Towell and Hawkins (1994: 5), and lend support to Tarone (1979)-
... learner language (or interlanguage, as it is commonly called) is not only characterized by systematicity. Learner language systems are presumably - indeed, hopefully - unstable and in course of change; certainly, they are characterized also by high degrees of variability.
In sum, interlanguage or the second/foreign language learner’s interim language is permeable, variable within uniformity, systematic as well as universal in nature. It is, therefore, assumed that the study of interlanguage can help determine what the learner already knows at a certain point of time and what he/she has to be taught when and how in a particular second/foreign language teaching programme. Based on this assumption, the present study has been designed to investigate and examine the relevance of the study of interlanguage to teaching English as a foreign language (EFL) to Bengali speaking learners at the tertiary level.
Method
Subjects
The study has been conducted with an experimental group and a control group, each of which consists of 21 tertiary level students learning English as a foreign language (EFL) in the Language Centre at Jahangirnagar University. The subjects possess several characteristics in common - having the same mother tongue, belonging to the same age group, studying throughout in the Bengali medium, already receiving twelve years of formal instruction in EFL at the rate of about four hours per week, and having the same objective, that is, to achieve a good command of the basic skills of the target language.
To choose the subjects in both the groups, the simple random procedure has been applied since this type of sampling is easy and inexpensive for subject selection and data analysis (Sudman 1976). In the simple random procedure, a list of the total population members is arranged in a random order, and every nth name is then picked out. Every member of the population has an equal chance of being selected in the sample.
Instrumentation
The Oxford Placement Test being made up of two subtests - Test of Grammatical Structures (Appendix-A) and Test of Reading and Listening Skills (Appendix-B) constructed by Allan (1985) coupled with a Free Composition Test (Appendix-C) and a Speaking Test (Appendix-D) designed by the present researcher has been employed to measure the pre-programme as well as post-programme linguistic level of both the experimental group and the control group. All the tests have also been used to analyze the interlanguage of the subjects of the experimental group.
Oxford Placement Test: The Oxford Placement Test is one of the most widely used measures of ESL/EFL proficiency in the UK. It has been reliably exploited for ascertaining English proficiency of the students entering undergraduate and postgraduate studies in British universities. Since the subjects of the present study are of the undergraduate level, the researcher deems that the Oxford Placement Test effectively and efficiently measures the subjects’ proficiency in writing, reading and listening. This test is constituted of two subtests:
a. Test of Grammatical Structures: This is a written multiple-choice test of grammatical structures of English covered by the vast majority of course books, whether functional or structural, in the range from elementary to advanced. The test has one hundred multiple-choice items, each carrying one mark. A time limit of one hour thirty minutes is set for the test.
b. Test of Reading and Listening Skills: This is a test of reading and listening skills consisting of one hundred multiple-choice items, each of one mark. In the test, the testee’s performance is dependent on the knowledge of the sound and writing systems of the English language and upon the ability to make use of this knowledge. The recorded material controls the time for the test.
Free Composition Test: This test is designed to assess the subjects’ linguistic competence in organizing and presenting relevant ideas in writing. Controlled compositions are error-provoking while free compositions are error-avoiding. In this investigation, spontaneous prediction procedure has been followed, and the subjects are asked to write a free composition on any one of the topics –‘Your Future Plan’, ‘Importance of English’ and ‘Family Life’. A time limit of one hour is set for the test, and it is marked in 20.
Speaking Test: This test is made up of the items supposed to determine the subjects’ ability to express different attitudes, feelings and emotions as well as their competence in communicating in real life situations. The subjects are required to answer the test in 45 minutes, and it is marked in 25.
Data collection and analysis
To ascertain the subjects’ current level of proficiency in the English language, the Oxford Placement Test, Free Composition Test and Speaking Test have been administered to both the experimental group and the control group prior to the start of their EFL programmes. The data collected from both the groups are checked and scored by hand; and their average proficiency before the start of the EFL programmes or the pre-programme linguistic level of each of the groups is computed.
Interlanguage has so far been studied by a good number of psycholinguists (e.g. Brown 1973, Dulay and Burt 1974) in two manners - the morpheme studies and error analysis. However, error analysis has been adopted to serve the purpose of the present study, and is performed to detect the linguistic deficiencies or errors/mistakes in the data gathered from the experimental group before the start of the EFL programme. ‘Let the errors determine the categories’ approach (Norrish 1983) is used to group the errors (/mistakes) as they are basically related to particular grammatical, semantic, phonetic, phonological, lexical and comprehensive problems. This approach is employed since it has the advantage of allowing the errors (/mistakes) themselves to determine the categories chosen: by a process of sorting and resorting the categories will eventually define themselves.
Then both the groups have completed their respective EFL programmes, each of 72 contact hours. The control group has been taught according to the syllabus already designed by the Language Centre whereas the experimental group has been taught according to the syllabus designed by course teacher in the light of the results of the error analysis of the data collected from the subjects of this group before the start of the EFL programme. At the end of the programmes, the Oxford Placement Test, Free Composition Test and Speaking Test have again been given to both the groups, and their average proficiency after the completion of the EFL programmes or the post-programme linguistic level of each of the groups is computed. In addition, error analysis is again carried out to uncover errors/mistakes in the data gathered from the experimental group after the completion of the EFL programme.
Presentation and interpretation of the findings
The analysis of the data collected from both the experimental group and the control group by using the Oxford Placement Test, Free Composition Test and Speaking Test produces four types of findings.
Pre-programme linguistic level
The average marks secured by both the experimental group and the control group in the Oxford Placement Test, Free Composition Test and Speaking Test before their receiving any instruction in the EFL programme are shown in Table-1 below:
illustration not visible in this excerpt
Table-1
The findings presented in Table-1 reveal that the average marks of the experimental group are a good approximation to those of the control group. While the experimental group secures 40, 33, 6 and 11.5 in Test of grammatical Structures, Test of Reading and Listening Skills, Free Composition Test and Speaking Test respectively, the control group gets 41, 31, 6.5 and 12 in the same tests respectively. That is, the pre-programme linguistic levels of both the groups are almost the same.
These results might be attributed to the fact that the subjects belonging to both the experimental group and the control group possess almost everything in common, such as the same mother tongue, the same age group, similar educational background, similar exposure to EFL, and the same objective of learning EFL. However, the insignificant difference between the scores of the two groups can be supported by the existing finding that there is individual variability within uniformity of interlanguage (Andersen 1978 and Hyltenstam 1977).
Pre-programme linguistic deficiencies of the experimental group
The linguistic deficiencies detected by the error analysis of the data collected from the experimental group prior to the start of the ELT programme are summed up and discussed as follows:
Test of Grammatical Structures: The Test of Grammatical Structures taken by the subjects of the experimental group exhibits that the subjects have considerable deficiency in linguistic competence as well as performance. They have committed both ‘errors of competence’, that is, failures in using appropriate and correct language forms and rules to transmit or perceive messages, and ‘errors of performance’, that is, mistakes occurring due to the subjects' insufficient practice, indifference, fatigue, or anxiety. More specifically, the subjects have inadequate knowledge of and ability to use appropriate and correct count/non-count nouns, e.g. ‘information, homework’, determiners, e.g. ‘few, little, some’, relative pronouns, e.g. ‘that, which, where’, connectors, e.g. ‘since, because, or’, adverbs, e.g. ‘always, recently, hardly, scarcely, really’, modals, e.g. ‘could, will, shall, would, may, can, might, must, need’, verb forms and tenses, subject-verb agreement and prepositions. Moreover, they are found to have encountered difficulty in forming negative sentences, questions, passive sentences, reported speech, conditionals, tag questions, and the like.
The finding is consistent with those uncovered by Haque and Maniruzzaman (1993) and Maniruzzaman (2003), and can be thought over to be the outcome of the insufficient and defective input and formal instruction in the grammatical structures the subjects received before the start of the present EFL programme.
Test of Reading and Listening Skills: The Test of Reading and Listening Skills unfolds that the subjects lack proficiency in both reading and listening comprehension. Their skimming and scanning ability is very poor and reading speed so slow. Besides, they seem to have insufficient vocabulary and knowledge of sentence structures, and hence poor reading comprehension ability. Furthermore, the subjects confront much difficulty in listening to utterances since many English vowel and consonant sounds are unfamiliar to them. They face problems particularly with long monophthongs, diphthongs, labio-dentals, inter-dentals and sibilants. Moreover, they cannot cope with the effects produced by strong-weak forms, stress and intonation. As a consequence, their ability of listening to utterances and understanding information is very limited.
The findings could be attributed to several factors, such as defective and inappropriate teaching methods and techniques, inadequate and irrelevant material, the subjects’ lack of practice, uncongenial learning environment, mother tongue interference, and so on.
Free Composition Test: The Test of Free Composition reveals that the subjects face problems of constructing correct sentences and presenting ideas in a well-organized manner. This is due to their inadequate command of the uses of different grammatical categories, such as tenses, articles, demonstratives, possessives, quantifiers, subject-verb agreement, adjectives, adverbs, prepositions, passivization, and spellings as well as the usages of different of words. This finding again lends support to those uncovered by Haque and Maniruzzaman (1993) and Maniruzzaman (2003), and can be considered to be the outcome of the limitations in the whole teaching process encompassing the teacher, syllabus, teaching methods and techniques, materials, equipment and testing tools.
Speaking Test: The Speaking Test discloses that the subjects tremendously lack both linguistic and communicative competence since they have limited skills at using contractions, suprasegmental features - stress, tone and intonation, appropriate words and utterances in an appropriate way with appropriate persons in appropriate situations. The result might be explained by the fact that the speaking skill is very much neglected in the ELT classroom in Bangladesh. And outside the classroom, the subjects hardly get any opportunity of (practising) speaking in the English language.
Post-programme linguistic level
The average marks secured by both the experimental group and the control group in the Oxford Placement Test, Free Composition Test and Speaking Test after their receiving instruction in the EFL programme are displayed in Table-2 below:
illustration not visible in this excerpt
Table-2
The results showed in Table-2 disclose that the average marks of the experimental group are significantly much higher than those of the control group. The experimental group obtains 81, 78, 14 and 22 in Test of grammatical Structures, Test of Reading and Listening Skills, Free Composition Test and Speaking Test respectively whereas the control group gets 55, 49, 8.5 and 15 in the same tests respectively.
These findings can certainly be attributed to the fact that the subjects of the experimental group received instruction in the English language through the syllabus, teaching methods and techniques as well as materials designed, adapted and adopted on the basis of the study of the interlanguage of the subjects of this group; on the other hand, the subjects of the control group learned the English language in the pre-planned and pre-designed programme of the Language Centre having no link to the study of their interlanguage before the commencement of their EFL programme.
Post-programme linguistic deficiencies of the experimental group
The error analysis of the data collected from the experimental group after the completion of the EFL programme designed and conducted on the basis of the findings of the error analysis of the data gathered from the same group prior to the commencement of the EFL programme conspicuously shows that the subjects have had their linguistic level substantially improved since this time they have secured significantly higher marks in Test of Grammatical Structures, Test of Reading and Listening Skills, Free Composition Test and Speaking Test, as compared with those of the previous time. That is, they have now committed less errors/mistakes and prove to have acquired a good command of all the basic skills of the English language - listening, speaking, reading and writing. This finding is due to the consideration and exploitation of the findings of the error analysis of the data gathered from the experimental group before the beginning of the EFL programme.
Conclusions and suggestions
The analysis and interpretation of the findings of the present investigation lead to two conspicuous inferences.
Firstly, the study of interlanguage helps determine the current linguistic level of the learner. As a result, it is possible to find out what the learner lacks and what he/she need learn to reach a standard of the English language. That is, the research into the learner’s interim dialect of the target language evidently demonstrates both the general and specific linguistic as well as communicative weaknesses he/she has, and indicates the future course of action.
Secondly, the EFL programme which is based on the study of the interlanguage of the learner is more effective and successful than that which is designed and implemented on the basis of theories, assumptions, experiences and predictions.
Therefore, it can be claimed that the study of interlanguage is substantially relevant to teaching English as a foreign language especially at the tertiary level.
Based on the conclusions of the current study, several linguistic and pedagogic recommendations could be made.
First, the learner’s interlanguage can be analyzed and investigated to select and sequence the contents or teaching/learning items of the syllabus. In other words, the results of the study of the interlanguage of the learner should be used to reveal what he/she need learn in which order to approximate a standard of the target language. In this manner, the study of the interlanguage of the learner might be exploited as an instrument complementary to needs analysis of the same learner.
Second, through the study of the interlanguage of the learner, the teacher should have a clear concept of the nature of the learner’s interim language. This knowledge might help the teacher feel more confident and become more competent than before in discovering the learner’s errors, the causes of the errors, and taking sufficient and suitable remedial measures to properly treat the errors.
Third, the study of interlanguage should be carried out so as to be aware of the individual variability within uniformity; and teaching methods, techniques and classroom activities should be planned, adapted, adopted and implemented accordingly.
Finally, the universality or common characteristics of interlanguage may be considered to choose and order the common contents of the syllabus and adopt some common steps to treat them appropriately and adequately in the classroom situation.
Works Cited
Adjemian, C. “On the nature of interlanguage system.” Language Learning 26 (1976): 297-320.
Andersen, R. “An implicational model for second language acquisition.” Language Learning 28 (1978): 221-282.
Allan, D. Oxford Placement Test. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1985.
Brown, R. A First Language: The Early Stages. Cambridge:, MA: Harvard University Press, 1973.
Corder, S. P. “The significance of learners’ errors.” International Review of Applied Linguistics 4 (1967): 161-169.
- - - . Introducing Applied Linguistics. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1973.
Dulay, H. C. and M. K. Burt. “Errors and Strategies in Child Second Language Acquisition.” TESOL Quarterly 8 (1974): 129-136.
Ellis, Rod. The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994.
Haque, S. M. and M. Maniruzzaman. “The need for the study of language.” The Dhaka University Studies 50, 2 (1993): 100-114.
Hyltenstam, K. “Implication patterns in interlanguage syntax variation.” Language Learning 27 (1977): 383-411.
Maniruzzaman, M. “The rationale behind teaching language to students of literature.” The Jahangirnagar Review Part- C XIII & XIV (2001-2002 & 2002-2003): 235-249.
- - - . Introduction to English Language Study. Dhaka: Friends’ Book Corner, 2006.
Mitchell, R. and F. Myles. Second language Learning Theories. Great Britain: Arnold, 1998.
Nemser, W. “Approximative systems of foreign language learners.” International Review of Applied Linguistics 9 (1971): 115-123.
Norrish, J. Language Learners and Their Errors. London: Macmillan, 1983.
Selinker, L. “Language transfer.” General Linguistics 9 (1969): 67-92.
- - - . “Interlanguage.” IRAL 10 (1972): 209-231.
Spolsky, B. Conditions for Second Language Learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989.
Sudman, S. Applied Sampling. New York: Academic Press, Inc., 1976.
Tarone, E. “Interlanguage as a chameleon.” Language Learning 29 (1979): 181-191.
Towell, R. and R. Hawkins. Approaches to Second Language Acquisitin. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, 1994.
APPENDIX-A
Test of Grammatical Structures
Time- 90 Minutes
illustration not visible in this excerpt
APPENDIX-B
Test of Reading and Listening Skills
illustration not visible in this excerpt
APPENDIX-C
Free Composition Test
Time- 1 Hour
Marks- 20
Write a composition of 400 words on any one of the following topics:
a. Your future plan
b. Importance of English
c. Family life
APPENDIX-D
Speaking Test
Time- 45 Minutes
Marks-25
1. Write what you say to- 1x10=10
a. request your friend for a pen.
b. enter your teacher’s room.
c. draw somebody’s attention.
d. disapprove something.
e. offer tea to a guest.
f. invite your friend to your birthday party.
g. prefer coffee to tea.
h. meet a person for the first time.
i. express regrets for some mistakes.
j. advise your younger brother against something.
2. Write a dialogue with each of the situations: 5x2=10
(a) You have met your school friend in a bus stop after many years.
(b) You and your younger brother are discussing a TV programme.
3. This is a dialogue between Rafit and a passer-by. Fill in what the passer-by says by reading Rafit’s replies: 1x5=5
Rafit: Excuse me. I wonder if you can help me.
Passer-by: ─ ─ ─?
Rafit: I’m looking for GPO. I can’t find it.
Passer-by: ─ ─ ─.
Rafit: How much will it take?
Passer-by: ─ ─ ─.
Rafit: Can’t I go by rickshaw?
Passer-by: ─ ─ ─.
Rafit: Then it’s better to go by bus.
Passer-by: ─ ─ ─.
Frequently asked questions
What is the main focus of the research presented in this document?
The research investigates the relevance of studying interlanguage in teaching English as a foreign language (EFL) to Bengali-speaking learners at the tertiary level. It examines the linguistic deficiencies of students and how tailoring instruction based on interlanguage analysis affects their learning outcomes.
What is interlanguage, as defined in this document?
Interlanguage is described as the interim linguistic system constructed by a second/foreign language learner between their mother tongue and the target language. It's a unique, individual system characterized by errors and variability, reflecting the learner's current linguistic level and what they need to acquire.
What are the key cognitive processes that influence interlanguage development, according to Selinker (1972)?
Selinker identifies five central cognitive processes: first language transfer, transfer of training, strategies of second/foreign language learning, strategies of second/foreign language communication, and overgeneralization of the target language linguistic material.
How was the research conducted?
The study involved an experimental group and a control group of tertiary-level EFL students. Both groups were pre-tested using the Oxford Placement Test, Free Composition Test, and Speaking Test. The experimental group received instruction tailored based on an error analysis of their pre-test interlanguage, while the control group received standard instruction. Both groups were post-tested using the same instruments to assess their linguistic level.
What instruments were used to collect data?
The study used the Oxford Placement Test (including a Test of Grammatical Structures and a Test of Reading and Listening Skills), a Free Composition Test, and a Speaking Test.
What is the Oxford Placement Test and what does it measure?
The Oxford Placement Test is a widely used measure of ESL/EFL proficiency. It consists of two subtests: the Test of Grammatical Structures, which assesses knowledge of English grammar, and the Test of Reading and Listening Skills, which evaluates reading and listening comprehension.
How was error analysis used in the study?
Error analysis was used to identify the linguistic deficiencies or errors in the data collected from the experimental group before and after the EFL program. This analysis helped inform the design of the tailored instruction for the experimental group.
What were the key findings of the research?
The research found that the experimental group, which received instruction based on interlanguage analysis, showed significantly higher improvement in their linguistic level compared to the control group. This suggests that studying interlanguage is relevant and beneficial in teaching EFL.
What conclusions were drawn from the research?
The study concludes that analyzing a learner's interlanguage helps determine their current linguistic level, identify weaknesses, and guide instructional design. EFL programs that are based on the study of the interlanguage of the learner are more effective and successful than those designed without that information.
What are some recommendations based on the study's conclusions?
The study recommends analyzing learner interlanguage to inform syllabus design, providing teachers with insights into learner errors, and considering individual variability within uniformity when planning instruction. Also consider the commonality of interlanguage to choose the common contents of the syllabus and adopt some common steps to treat them appropriately and adequately in the classroom situation.
What is the purpose of the appendices?
The appendices contain the tests used in the study: the Test of Grammatical Structures (Appendix A), the Test of Reading and Listening Skills (Appendix B), the Free Composition Test (Appendix C), and the Speaking Test (Appendix D). They provide examples of the assessment tools utilized to gauge the students' English proficiency.
- Quote paper
- Dr. M. Maniruzzaman (Author), 2007, Relevance of the study of interlanguage to teaching EFL at the tertiary level - Interlanguage and teaching EFL, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/111248
