Learner Language / Development Learner Language/ Eiram Amjed

The stages that second language learners go through, with its focus on how long each stage takes to reach the almost native like speakers.

1. Developmental Learner Language Presenter: Eiram Amjed Khudhr

2. Content: 6 Development Of Learner Language 6.1 Two Approaches To The Study Of Learner Language: General Cognitive And Formal Linguistics 6.2 Interlanguages: The Sum Of Input And First Languages 6.3 Cognitive Explanations For The Development Of Learner Language 6.4 Formula-based Learning: The Stuff Of Acquisition 6.5 four Interlanguage Processes 6.6 Interlanguage Processes At Work: Ge’s Da 6.7 Development As Variability-in-systematicity: The Case Of Jorge's Negation 6.8 Interlanguage Before Grammaticalization: The Basic Variety Of Naturalistic Learners

3. 1. Development of Learner Language “Learner language according to Carla (2021) is what learners say or write when they are trying to communicate spontaneously in a language they are learning. Interlanguage (IL) is the system that underlies learner language grammar, vocabulary and pronunciation. Published research on second language acquisition shows that learners' language is produced by a built-in syllabus , which differs from the syllabus the teacher uses.” SLA researchers attempt to clarify Learner language as L2 competence and L2 development (Ortega,2013,p.110). Competence Is the mental representations that consist of the internal grammar of learners. Development Is the process and the mechanisms in which the learner’s mental representations and capability to use them goes through change over time (Ortega,2013). The focus is usually on grammar, and specifically on morphology and syntax. To comprehend a SL learners need to know other dimensions such as : vocabulary, phonology, pragmatics and discourse.

4. Two APPROACHES TO THE STUDY OF LEARNER LANGUAGE: GENERAL COGNITIVE AND FORMAL LINGUISTIC Interlanguage according to Selinker (1972) is the language system that the learner invents or constructs in the process of developing the L2 that they learn (ortega,2013,p.111). The emergence of Interlanguage tradition marked the rise of SLA as an autonomous domain. Interlanguage tradition shifted the focus away from the contrastive analysis, in which it attempted to categorize the linguistic differences . Instead it emphasized on analyzing the new utterances the learners produce while using L2.

5. What is Interlanguage?

6. 2.The Formalistic Approach The formalistic approach began to develop in early 1980s, When the school of Chomskyan linguistics proposed the possibility that an inbuilt UG limits L2 acquisition (Ortega,2013, p. 111) Principles (tenets) of Formalistic Approach Nativism modularity human beings are a kind of species that are gifted with the basics of grammar knowledge before they get exposed to the language speakers and the environment. human’s mind has a module dedicated for language, in which language learning and language use is managed. This approach emphasizes Competence over development

7. *Interlanguage investigators make use of general cognitive mechanism that help learners process any piece of information. It assists them identify r egularities and the rules from the linguistic data found in their surroundings. *Interlanguage approach emphasizes on development rather than competence . *Data collected in regard of interlanguage approach is valued because learners construct new words when they speak, write in different communicative contexts. Therefore, the development is emphasized on.

8. Interlanguages: The Sum of Input and First languages L1 Japanese speaker: she ... runned away L1 Korean speaker: . he falls a piece of note into dough by mistake L1 Spanish speaker: It [a wall] was falled down in order to get a bigger green house The simple past morpheme -ed is added to a irregular verb (run), And the intransitive and causative verb (fall) has been used to mean (drop). The two solutions has been used in e.g. (3) as well The mentioned examples indicate 2 generalization of interlanguage: L2 users tend to create mental representations different from the input of the L2 input. 2. They also tend to create different grammar representations form that which exists in their first language.

9. Question: If interlanguage solutions are often shared by first and second language acquirers, and if neither the target input nor the L1 influence can entirely explain them, then what can?

10. Cognitive Explanations for the Development of Learner Language Slobin’s investigation (1973) provided with 40 sentences for children as they learn the grammar of the L1 input. The sentences were about maxims: Paying attention to the end of words. Avoiding Exceptions In 1980 Roger applied the same formula for gaining L2 input, and it resulted in success. Bill VanPatten’s (2002) shown efforts to compile psycholinguistic principles, he proposed: 1.Children process content words before any other language items. 2. They process lexical encoding before synonymous grammatical encoding, as ( tomorrow before will ) And semantic encoding before the formal one ( she before -es ) 3. They interpret first nouns as subjects of the sentence. As in ( The eraser hit the cat ) The input process theory is too metaphorical in nature to be investigated by researches to explain why certain language inputs are processed before the other parts of language.

11. The Cognitive explanation of how L2 development works ;provided by usage-based emergentist theories. Robinson and Ellis (2008b) proposed that all the emergentist and dynamic theories with cognitive linguistics, corpus linguistics, probabilistic and frequency- based theory, rational and connectionist models of language share some principles: They hold that grammar learning is not rule-based or deductive , but driven by experience or inductive. they take frequency and salience in the input , and cognitive processes of attention and categorization in the learner, The contemporary cognitivist-emergentist perspectives afford variability an unprecedented importance. They also hold that learner language development must account for the simultaneous interaction of multiple forces not one single force.

12. Formula-based learning: the stuff of acquisition Leaners use a bunch of memorized bits of language and they develop them by factors like motivation and communicative contexts . First: They use these memorized items of L. in inexplainable fashion . Then the formula started to contain more varied items of L. and started using the grammar with more accuracy, later on how-questions appeared in their speech. Formula based learning guides the majority of acquisition task.

13. Steps of Formula-based Learning: Registration of formulas (also called items or exemplars): sharing a form or a meaning experienced through the encounter of a language use. ,if the form and meaningful items of the L. repeatedly used in communicative contexts , and both formal and functional items of L. are significant enough, it leads to generalization . 2.Low-scope pattern : are commonly the words that have high frequency use . As in: ( Nora’s ‘how do you do dese’) 3.Construction or schema : the stage where the learned L. items are analyzed by categorization and generalization. Or creating relations between the form and the functions of the L. use. These stages lead to the development of linguistic representations and internal structure of the learners. Different learners go through these stages in various ways , some of them reach the construction formula, others might not , as Myles et al (1999) ‘s investigation proved.

14. Four Interlanguage Processes 1. Simplification : a process that is called upon when messages must be conveyed with little language. It is particularly pervasive at very early stages of L2 development and among naturalistic learners . 2. O vergeneralization : application of a form or rule not only to contexts where it applies, but also to other contexts where it does not apply. For example, learners begin using ( –ing) from very early on, but they also overgeneralize it to many non-target- like contexts . (5)   I don’t know why people always talking me ( appropriate in meaning) (6)   so yesterday I didn’t painting (oversupplied) In instructional contexts, too, classroom students have been seen to overgeneralize – ing frequently, even during the same period when they may not provide it in other required contexts, (7)   I like to studying English (8)   I was study languages all last year Overgeneralization can be apparently random , as in examples (6) through (7) above, or it can be systematic . An important case of systematic overgeneralization in morphology involves overregularization , or the attempt to make irregular forms fit regular patterns. After systematically overgeneralizing, the learning task is to retreat from the overgeneralization and to adjust the application of the form or rule to increasingly more relevant contexts .

15. 3. R estructuring : in this process the learner organizes his /her knowledge of grammatical representations. The knowledge is either organized or modified. The reconstruction stage can leave big or small changes, abrupt or gradual. However , the change is always qualitative, but it can’t include increased accuracy . 4. U-shaped behaviour : it’s part of restructuring stage, though it compiles different features( more developed). In this stage the learner produces utterances that are correct , nativelike , and marks the early stage of development. linguistic products of the final phase cannot be distinguished from those of the first phase . Both stages are error-free. However, the underlying representations at the two times are qualitatively different. In the first phase, accuracy is purely coincidental , because it lacks the full representation of target-like functions and meanings that underlies the final phase.

16. INTERLANGUAGE PROCESSES AT WORK: GE’S DA Simplification Reconstructing (after 5+ months) pronounced the as ‘da’ GE: chainis tertii-tertii fai . bat jaepanii isa twentii eit . (neither the referent nor the topic) ( The Chinese man is thirty-five, but the Japanese is twenty-eight ] GE: gow howm , isa plei da gerl [When we went home, we would visit with the girls] Overgeneralization of da disappeared Ge started using indefinite articles for the indefinite nouns like: A woman walks down the street. Ge used da to mark 80-90% of all nouns (the flooding stage ) Heubner (1983) It resulted in lower levels of accuracy. Ge started to produce a native like da ! to 80-90% of the levels D a started to disappear from non-target like indefinite contexts. O vergeneralization (After 1 month an d a half) U Shaped Behavior (in less than 7 months)

17. Interlanguage is not random, it changes in expected ways, and it’s systematic. At the same time, the process is charecterized by systematicity and Variability .

18. DEVELOPMENT AS VARIABILITY-IN-SYSTEMATICITY: THE CASE OF JORGE’S NEGATION Simplification The first 2 months Reconstructing (after 4 months ) Pre-verbal negation with no/not Such as: No saw him Post-verbal negation in restricted contexts (COP/AUX + not/don’t ) Such as: I will don’t see you tomorrow. I t was very slow and graduate. Pre-verbal negation with don’t S uch as: I don’t saw him. The first two stages were brief Post-verbal negation in all contexts Such as: I didn’t went to Costa Rica. , I didn’t see nobody O vergeneralization (lasted 2 months) U Shaped Behavior (after month 5 and 6) Cancino et al. (1978) and Stauble (1978)

19. DEVELOPMENT AS VARIABILITY-IN-SYSTEMATICITY: THE CASE OF JORGE’S NEGATION

20. As seen from the examples in table 6.2, the process that Jorge has gone through wasn’t from a beginning which is full of errors to an end that is error less. The process is only a representaion of a more advanced use of solutions to the developmental problem of negation.

21. INTERLANGUAGE BEFORE GRAMMATICALIZATION: THE BASIC VARIETY OF NATURALISTIC LEARNERS When L2 learners start learning English with having no knowledge, in the natural environment that the native speakers of the L2 live in. Interlanguage process develops in a natural environment. A Study European Science Foundation (ESF) in 1980s conducted a large scale investigation. It was explored by ( Perdue, 1982; Klein and Perdue, 1997 ). ‘two L2s by two L1s’ design was followed,

22. INTERLANGUAGE BEFORE GRAMMATICALIZATION: THE BASIC VARIETY OF NATURALISTIC LEARNERS 1/3 of 40 adult immigrants 2/3 of 40 adult immigrants (30 months) Basic Variety After 2 years and a half the participants developed a primary, systematic, and fully communicative Interlanguage Grammaticalization Klein and Perdue (1997) due to the need of expressing more complex and conflicting ideas, learners went beyond the BV. The participants were learning 5 different languages and they were from 5 different countries. Result: the ESF study uncovered strong universal patterns rather than large crosslinguistic particularities.

23. Resources: https://carla.umn.edu/learnerlanguage/index.html Ortega, L. (2013) Understanding Second Language Acquisition. Routledge. USA.

24. Thank you