Novosibirsk State Pedagogical University Bulletin, 2017, vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 93–107
UDC: 
372.811 + 811.11-112

The impact of interlanguage on students’ bilingual behaviour during the process of acquiring a foreign language [In English]

Kostina E. A. 1 (Novosibirsk, Russian Federation), Hackett-Jones A. V. 2 (St Petersburg, Russian Federation), Bagramova N. V. 2 (St Petersburg, Russian Federation)
1 Novosibirsk State Pedagogical University, Novosibirsk, Russian Federation
2 Herzen State Pedagogical University of Russia
Abstract: 

Introduction. The article presents an overview of the major ideas of contemporary foreign and Russian researchers on the issue of the speech mechanism formation of a foreign language learner. The authors aim to identify effective synergetic ways of employing linguistics, psycholinguistics and the methodology of foreign language teaching that can improve the efficiency of the language learning process. The authors note that, despite a number of research papers on the subject, published both in Russia and abroad, the science still lacks a clear-cut definition of this phenomenon, and its role in the process of foreign language acquisition is not stated. Thus the research problem of the paper is to study the intermediate language system in the speech mechanism of a bilingual acquiring a foreign language at a given stage. The purpose of the study is to determine the nature and the status of an intermediate language system and its role in foreign language acquisition, and to find out the ways of optimizing the process of foreign language teaching based on the data obtained. In line with the purpose set, the following research objectives were identified: 1) based on the analysis of research literature on the issues in question, to clarify the naming of the intermediate language system and define its nature; 2) to examine the component structure of the interlanguage; 3) based on the integration of data from linguistics, psycholinguistics, and psychology, to determine techniques that influence the dynamics of interlanguage development that can contribute to improving the effectiveness of the teaching process.
Materials and Methods. The methods employed in the current research combined the analysis of research literature in the fields of linguistics, psycholinguistics, methodology of foreign language teaching, psychology on the issues under study, the contrastive and comparative analysis of languages involved in the speech mechanism of a bilingual, the method of integrating psychological, psycholinguistic, and linguistic data.
Results. Some authors show skepticism with regard to the existence of the third language system in a bilingual setting. The article presents argumentation to prove the systemic character of this phenomenon, which results in defining the third language system as an intermediate system that psychologically combines three linguistic systems (native language, the third language system, the target language), and represents a continuum of certain changes. This continuum is dynamic in its nature, and consists of a series of approximate systems, each of which consistently and increasingly approaches the target language. All learners of foreign languages show certain deviations from the norm, that is, language mistakes, the existence and nature of which enable the teacher to evaluate the student’s progress in learning the language.
Conclusion. The article explores such a relevant phenomenon for the methodology of foreign language teaching as fossilization, which manifests itself in the interlanguage behavior of a bilingual as a result of the summation of five central processes that constitute the latent psychological structure of the individual. Fossilization is interpreted as a phenomenon known as typical persistent errors as opposed to occasional mistakes. The authors analyze the main characteristics of fossilization, such as its dynamism and stability that make the research subject of the theory of speech errors. Based on the analysis and integration of linguistic, psycholinguistic and psychological data, the authors develop methodological recommendations for optimizing the foreign language teaching process. It is concluded that the interlanguage is a complex dynamic system that continually accompanies the process of developing bilingualism and is based on the laws of linguistics, psychology and psycholinguistics. Studying the nature of this system can greatly enhance the efficiency of the process of foreign language acquisition.

Keywords: 

Interlanguage; Intermediate language system; Latent psychological structure; Interference; Overgeneralization; Fossilization; Languages comparative analysis; Linguistic errors; Learners psychological features; Cognitive styles

https://www.scopus.com/record/display.uri?src=s&origin=cto&ctoId=CTODS_1...

The impact of interlanguage on students' bilingual behaviour during the process of acquiring a foreign language

For citation:
Kostina E. A., Hackett-Jones A. V., Bagramova N. V. The impact of interlanguage on students’ bilingual behaviour during the process of acquiring a foreign language [In English]. Novosibirsk State Pedagogical University Bulletin, 2017, vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 93–107. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15293/2226-3365.1704.06
References: 
  1. Adamson H. D. Interlanguage Variation in Theoretical and Pedagogical Perspective. London, Routledge Publ., 2009, 214 p. DOI: http://doi.org/10.4324/9780203887363
  2. Adjemian C. On the Nature of Interlanguage Systems. Language Learning, 1976, vol. 26, issue 2, pp. 297–320. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1976.tb00279.x
  3. Ansaldo A. I., Ghazi-Saidi L., Adrover-Roig D. Interference control in elderly bilinguals: Appearances can be misleading. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 2015, vol.37, issue 5, pp. 455–470. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13803395.2014.990359
  4. Berrior P., Ghazi-Saidi L., Dash T., Adrover-Roig D., Benali H., Ansaldo A. I.Interference control at the response level: Functional networks reveal higher efficiency in the bilingual brain. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 2016, vol. 43, part A, pp. 4–16. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneuroling.2016.09.007
  5. Sankoff G. Bickerton Derek, Dynamics of a creole system. London: Cambridge University Press, 1975. Pp. viii + 224. Journal of Linguistics, 1977, vol. 13, issue 2, pp. 292–306. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226700005454
  6. Corder S. P. Idiosyncratic dialects and error analysis. International Review of Applied Linguistics and Language Teaching, 1971, vol. 9, issue 2, pp. 147–160. DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1515/iral.1971.9.2.147   
  7. Dmitrenko V. Language learning strategies of multilingual adults learning additional languages. International Journal of Multilingualism, 2017, vol. 14, issue 1, pp. 6–22. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14790718.2017.1258978
  8. Esfahani F. R. Wh-constraints in interlanguage grammar of Persian EFL learners and its implication for teaching English as a foreign language. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2015, vol. 192, pp. 737–747. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.06.089
  9. Fairclough N. Language and globalisation. Oxford, Routledge Publ., 2006, 186 p. http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=%0A%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20Language%20and%20globalization%0A%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20&author=N.%20Fairclough&publication_year=2006
  10. Gold B. T., Kim C., Johnson N. F., Kryscio R. J., Smith C. D. Lifelong bilingualism maintains neural efficiency for cognitive control in aging. Journal of Neuroscience, 2013, vol. 33 (2),pp. 387–396. DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3837-12.2013
  11. Jakobovits L. A. Research findings and foreign language requirements in colleges and universities. Foreign Language Annals, 1969, vol. 2, issue 4, pp. 436–456. DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.1969.tb00321.x  
  12. Jäschke K., Plag I. The Dative Alternation in German-English Interlanguage. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 2016, vol. 38, issue 3, pp. 485–521. DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0272263115000261
  13. Jordens P. Rules, grammatical intuitions and strategies in foreign language learning. Interlanguage Studies Bulletin, 1977, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 5–76. URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/43135167
  14. Hosseini S. S., Sangani H. R.Studying the Pre-Intermediate Iranian EL Learners’ Interlanguage and the Contribution of their Innate System to the Development of their Oral Communicative Proficiency. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2015, vol. 192, pp. 408–418. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.06.057  
  15. Kykalova M., Vasilyeva E. A. On the problem of categorizing students based on their cognitive styles and teaching strategies. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2015, vol. 176, pp. 578–587. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.513
  16. Maseleno A., Hardaker G., Sabani N., Suhaili N. Data on multicultural education and diagnostic information profiling: Culture, learning styles and creativity. Data in Brief, 2016, vol. 9, pp. 1048–1051. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.dib.2016.11.024
  17. Matusevych Y., Alishahi A., Backus A. The impact of first and second language exposure on learning second language constructions. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 2017, vol. 20, issue 1, pp. 128–149. DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1366728915000607
  18. Munoz Luna R. Interlanguage in undergraduates' academic English: Preliminary results from written script analysis. Encuentro, 2010, vol. 19, pp. 60–73. URL: http://www.encuentrojournal.org/textos/Mu_oz_Luna.pdf
  19. Nazarenko L. Methods of overcoming the language interference in the speech of Russian-speaking immigrants in the Czech Republic. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2013, vol. 93, pp. 1630–1633. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.10.092
  20. Nemser W. Approximative systems of foreign language learners. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 1974, vol. 9, issue 2, pp. 115–123. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/iral.1971.9.2.115
  21. Podlipský V. J., Šimáčková S., Petráž D. Is there an interlanguage speech credibility benefit? Topics in Linguistics, 2016, vol. 17, issue 1, pp. 30–44. DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1515/topling-2016-0003
  22. Richards J. C., Kennedy G. Interlanguage: A review and a preview. Regional English Language Centre Journal, 1977, vol. 8, issue 1, pp. 13–28. URL: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/ 003368827700800102
  23. Rogoznaya N. N. Bilingualism. Interlanguage. Interference: monograph. Irkutsk, Irkutsk State Technological University Publ., 2012, 169 p. (In Russian) URL: https://elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=23225847  
  24. Schumann J. H. The Pidginization Process: A Model for Second Language Acquisition. Rowley, Mass., Newbury House Publ., 1978, 190 p. URL: https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/000311214
  25. Selinker L. Interlanguage. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 1972, vol. 10, issue 1-4, pp. 209–232. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/iral.1972.10.1-4.209
  26. Shevnin A. B. Erratology and interlingual communication. Voronezh State University Bulletin, series “Linguistics and Interlingual Communication”, 2004, no. 2, pp. 36–44. (In Russian) URL: https://elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=18239282
  27. Tarone E. Interlanguage as chameleon. Language Learning: A Journal of Research in Language Studies, 1979, vol. 29, issue 1, pp. 181–191. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1979.tb01058.x
  28. Vereshchagin Е. М. The notion of “interference” in linguistic and psychological literature. Foreign Languages in Higher Education, 1968, no. 4, pp. 103–110. (In Russian) URL: https://elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=21034889
  29. Wardhaugh R. The contrastive analysis hypothesis. TESOL Quarterly, 1970, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 123–130. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/3586182
  30. Whitman R. Contrastive analysis: problems and procedures. Language Learning, 1970, vol. 20, issue 2, pp. 191–197. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1970.tb00476.x  
Date of the publication 31.08.2017