Error Analysis of Interlanguage in English Writing Xue-Jing WU Jilin University of Finance and Economics, China 403477216@Qq.Com

2017 3rd Annual International Conference on Modern Education and Social Science (MESS 2017) ISBN: 978-1-60595-450-9

Error Analysis of Interlanguage in English Writing Xue-Jing WU Jilin University of Finance and Economics, China [email protected]

Keywords: Interlanguage, error analysis, writing Abstract: This paper mainly deals with the native language interlanguage in second Language Acquisition (SLA). We make a systematic discussion on its notion, its development and the practical approaches to the analysis of interlanguage (IL). Besides, empirical study on the characteristics of IL in writing examination is also illustrated.

The Notions of Interlanguage Second language acquisition (SLA) is a complex process, involving many interrelated factors. In order to investigate SLA, it’s important to establish clearly what is meant by the term. SLA is the product of many factors pertaining to the learner on the one hand and the learning situation on the other [Ellis, 4]. Different learners in different situations learn a L2 in different ways. Where SLA was concerned, the key concept in the revised thinking about the process of learning was that of interlanguage. This was used to refer to the systematic knowledge of language, which is independent of both the learner’s L1 and L2 system he is trying to learn. Interlanguage was the theoretical construct which underlie the attempts of SLA researchers to identify the stages of development through which L2 learners pass on their way to L2 (or near-L2) proficiency[Ellis, 42]. In the analysis of the learners’ language, different linguists proposed different terms to describe the learners’ language systems, such as “interlanguage”, “approximative system”, ”idiosyncratic dialects” and “transitional competence”. The term interlanguage was first used by Selinker (1972). It refers to the separateness of a second language learner’s system, a system that has a structurally intermediate status between the native and target languages. It seems that interlanguage is an independent language system of L2 learners, which exists between the native language and the target language. The appearance of interlanguage is the result of many cognitive processes’ influence. W. Nemser (1971) uses “approximative systems” to refer to this language system. Nemser mainly focuses on the characteristic of incompleteness in learner’s second language. He thinks that learners’ language system is a kind of developmental process from the zero knowledge of second language to native speaker competence. In other words, any kind of grammatical forms in interlanguage can be any points in this continuum. S.P. Corder (1967) proposes the term “transitional competence” to refer to interlanguage. He thinks that the L2 learner’s interlanguage is constantly changing, and is a dynamic process. Later, according to Chomsky’s language study method, Corder (1971) calls interlanguage as “idiosyncratic dialect”. He believes that the second language learner’s language is a special sort of dialect. As we have mentioned above, we can find that these terms reflect two related but different concepts. First, interlanguage refers to the structured system, which the learner constructs at any given stage in his development (i.e. an interlanguage). Second, the term refers to the series of interlocking systems, which form what Corder (1967) called the learner’s ‘built –in syllabus’ (i.e. the interlanguage continuum).

The Different Stages of Interlanguage Development As we have mentioned above, interlanguage is a dynamic developmental process. It is the intermediate stage, which the learners should pass through between native language and target language. In terms of its characteristics of instability, Cordre divides the intermediate stages into three parts in general—pre-systematic stage, systematic stage and post systematic stage. Pre-systematic stage is the first stage in the development of interlanguage. At this stage the learner gets thing wrong

166 and only occasionally hits the right form, as if by chance. Corder thinks that the learners only have vague awareness on the rules of target language. Although they have intention to communicate, they don’t know how to use the target language to express their intention. Therefore, errors are inevitable during the use of language. For this kind of error, the learners are difficult to explain and to correct by themselves. The second stage of interlanguage is systematic stage. The learners sometimes get a thing right and sometimes wrong. It looks as if they knew some rules but simply failed to apply it. That means the learners needs further internalization of target language rules. Corder thinks that in this stage the learners can explain their errors, but cannot correct them. So, it needs the teacher’s help. The final stage of interlanguage development is post-systematic stage. In this stage, the language system of the target language and been able to apply the rules in an effective way. So what the teacher should do is to help learners form the right language habit in a certain context. What’s more, another linguist, Brown(1987)divided the interlanguage development into four stages, (1) random errors, (2) emergent state of interlanguage, (3) systematic stage, and (4) stabilization. Comparing with Corder’s classification of interlanguage stages, we can find some similarities between them . Brown’s first and second stages are similar to Corder’s first stage in the general way. Brown focuses on the randomness of learners using language before the target language system formed. Both Corder’s second stage and Brown’s third stage are called systematic stage. What’s the difference is Brown thinks that the learners could not only explain errors, but correct them in this stage.

Table 1. The different stages of interlanguage. Corder’s Brown’s 1. Random errors 1. Pre-systematic stage 2. Emergent stage of Interlanguage 2. Systematic stage 3. Systematic stage 3. Post-systematic stage 4. Stabilization

However, what we should point out is, it seems too simple to divide the interlanguage development into such stages. It is not definitely divided into three or four stages. The boundary is relative. There must be interrelation between these stages or the overlapping parts. What’s more, Corder’s and Brown’s division could not fully explain the whole language competence when L2 learners learn the target language. To some extent, they ignore the learner’s language receptive skills.

Errors Analysis in Writing Interlanguage is the intermediate stage between native language and target language. Compared with other natural languages, it seems incomplete. This kind of incompleteness could be illustrated by all types of error. So it can be said that errors accompany with the whole stages of interlanguage. Interlanguage is the foundation of error analysis. Learner’s error symbolizes some marked points in the interlanguage continuum, which reflects the real situation of learners. That is, the form and number of errors are variable in different interlanguage stages. Error Analysis flourished at the end of 1960s and 70s, its purpose is to find out the causes of the error’s appearance in second language acquisition and provide help to language learning and teaching. The main problem to emerge was that of how to categorize errors. Here, in this paper, an empirical study has been made on the Chinese English learners’ Interlanguage, and Error Analysis has been employed to carry out the study. The subjects of this study are first-year college students. The data of this analysis was taken from their writing papers in the first-year college students’ examination. There are 100 pieces of writing papers taken from the examination. By the analysis of data, we find that the errors existing in the interlanguage of first-year college students can be distinguished into two kinds of errors. First is knowledge, second

167 is capacity. Here, knowledge refers to grammatical competence in communicative methodology, while capacity refers to textual competence. Language knowledge is the question in sentence level in English writing. It includes the choice of vocabulary, syntactical application, semantic expression and others. Such types of errors almost take more than 60 percent without considering the discourse coherence and cohesion. Here are some examples: “There are ten mainly subjects this term.” “We are study after high school.” “I liked the better fruits are lemon…” Meanwhile, textual competence is a kind of writing skills above sentence level, including the constitution of paragraph and text, discourse coherence and cohesion. This kind of writing capacity is on the basis of certain language knowledge. It asks L2 learners to make full use of language in an appropriate and idiomatic way, rather than listing some simple words. For first-year college students, such kind of errors unavoidably appear in their interlanguage system. It may take 87 percent among all these errors. Let’s look at the following examples. “I hope everyone studies hard, and enjoys themselves and they will find a good job.” “I have to study many things after school, for example playing piano, dancing and …” “Mary told Rose that her book has been published.” By the analysis above, we find that the interlanguage of first-year college students belongs to the intermediate stage between pre-systematic stage and systematic stage in terms of Corder’s division. It can be regarded as the transitional stage. Interlanguage is developmental, so errors in L2 learner’s language system are chargeable from one stage to another stage. As a result of interlanguage theory and the evidence accumulated from Error analysis, errors were no longer seen as ‘unwanted forms’, but as evidence of the learner’s active contribution to SLA[Ellis, 54]. Furthermore, many other aspects of interlanguage of first-year college students need to be taken further analysis, such as, the process of interlanguage development, the influence of interlanguage on language teaching, the characteristics of interlanguage of first-year college students and others.

Conclusion In this paper, we have looked at the notions of interlanguage and the development of interlanguage. From the analysis of first-year college students’ interlanguage, we find out that interlanguage is developmental and constantly changing. However, the learners do not jump from one stage to the next, but rather slowly revise the interim systems to accommodate new hypotheses about the target language system. The analysis of the learner language system is significant not only to linguists but also to both the language teachers and learners. Besides, the analysis of the interlanguage can also provide to the researchers evidence of how language is learned or acquired, what strategies or procedures the learners are employing in the discovery of the language. Therefore, the findings of error analysis do benefit for second language learners.

References [1] Ellis, R., Understanding Second Language Acquisition, Oxford University Press, 1985. [2] Selinker, L., Interlanguage. IRAL, X.3, 1972. [3] Nemser, W. 1971. Approximative Systems of Foreign Language learners. IEAL, 9 [4] Tarone, E., On the Variability of Interlanguage Systems, Applied Linguistics 4/2: 143-163, 1983. [5] Corder, S.P, The Significance of Learners Errors, IRAL, 5, 1967. [6] Corder, S.P. 1971. Idiosyncratic Dialect and Error Analysis. IRAL, 9. [7] Brown, H.D. 1987. Principles of Language Learning and Teaching (2nd. ed.) Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice—Hall. Inc.

168