ry-selinker-1972

Selinker (1972). Interlanguage
 * ry - How accurate is ST's summary of this paper?**

Over all, it seems that Muriel Saville-Troike’s (ST) description of Selinker’s interlanguage is accurate. However, Selinker’s justification for interlanguage may be clearer and more convincing than ST’s drier, perhaps less controversial and shorter summary.

To maintain continuity in their introduction to various theories of second language acquisition (SLA) in their text, Saville and Troike describe interlanguage (IL) with L1 and L2 instead of Selinker’s corresponding NL and TL. Selinker refers to a learner’s native language (NL), the particular norm of the targeted language that is being learned (TL), and the in-between or interlanguage (IL) the learner is using to approximate the TL as the basis for his research. While this term renaming may not seem that big of a deal, it does add cognitive burden and colors the reader’s resulting understanding of NL, TL, and IL.

Selinker’s paper is perhaps a little “heavy” on the examples of Indian English as being an interlanguage practiced by a whole group of people. This is contrasts with ST’s focus on interlanguage as the interim grammars used but not particularly shared by an L2 learner to get closer and closer to utterances of native speakers of the TL = L2 language being learned. I imagine that speakers of English in India may not have had a favorable reaction to Selinker’s paper when it first came out.

I think that Selinker’s build-up and justification for his psycho-linguistic approach to target language learning is more convincing than ST’s. I like how Selinker takes the time to explain that his SLA theory is based on the learner’s perspective, even though this may seem redundant to a person already familiar with SLA theory. I liked his definition of meaningful performance as an attempt by an adult to express meanings he already may have in his NL in the TL. His explanation of how certain classroom drills are not particularly meaningful performances is persuasive. From a mathematician’s axiomatic bias, I liked his assertion that the only observable data from meaningful performances that are relevant are (1) utterances in the learner’s NL by the learner, (2) IL utterances by the learner as s/he learns the norm of the TL, and (3) utterances by native speakers of that TL. Selinker is clear in his claim that the linguistic shape of IL utterances with respect to their corresponding NL and TL native speaker utterances are where we can use to predict behavioral events in second language learning.

Both Selinker and ST point out the fundamental difference between L1/NL and L2/TL learning by children and adults, respectively. Children have direct if unconscious access to the universal grammar (UG) via their //latent language structure// or arrangement in their brains. Adults typically do not, but may be able to access a different //latent psychological structure// that is not limited by a deadline at puberty. Both Selinker and ST also outline the five central processes key to second language learning with respect to interlanguage: language transfer from L1 to L2, transfer of training, strategies of L2 learning, strategies of L2 communication, and overgeneralization of L2 linguistic material.

While ST does have the benefit of time and later Selinker refinements to characterize IL succinctly as a systematic, dynamic, variable, and a reduced system, ST does provides some recognizable concrete examples of fossilization which make the surface linguistics of IL utterances easier to understand. It is easy to imagine how Arnold Schwarzenegger’s “I’ll be bac[h]” or a Spanish speaker’s “Thanks God” might enlighten us on their ILs.