Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-03T19:06:21.503Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Updating the interlanguage hypothesis*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 November 2008

Larry Selinker  and
John T. Lamendella
Larry Selinker
Affiliation:
University of Michigan
John T. Lamendella
Affiliation:
San Jose State University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The first public presentation of the ideas leading up to the Interlanguage (IL) Hypothesis occurred a decade ago at the Second International Congress of Applied Linguistics (Selinker 1969; presented in greater detail in Selinker 1972). At that time, it was stated that, in attempting to understand the phenomenon of second-language learning, the field was at a stage where there existed an “inability to unambiguously identify the phenomena we wish to study” (Selinker 1969:35). That first presentation of the IL notion focused on the “psychologically relevant data of second-language learning,” trying to describe what it was that should be studied; the paper attempted to provide some theoretical constructs which would help identify and explain that data.

Type
Articles
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 3 , Issue 2 , Spring 1981 , pp. 201 - 220
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1981

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adjemian, C. 1976. On the nature of interlanguage systems. Language Learning 26: 297–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bickerton, D. 1975. Dynamics of a Creole system. London, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1965. Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA.: M.I.T. Press.Google Scholar
Corder, S. P. 1975. ‘Simple codes’ and the source of the second language learner's initial heuristic hypothesis. SSLA 1(1).1–10.Google Scholar
Corder, S. P. 1976. Language continua and the interlanguage hypothesis. Seme Colloque de Linguistique Appliqueé de Neuchâtel. Neuchâtel: Institut de Linguistique de Université.Google Scholar
Dickerson, L. J. 1974. Internal and external patterning of phonological variability in the speech of Japanese learners of English. University of Illinois Dissertation.Google Scholar
Dickerson, L. J. 1975. The learner's interlanguage as a system of variable rules. TESOL Quarterly 9.401–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, L. 1976. The second time around: cognitive and social strategies in second language acquisition. Stanford University Dissertation.Google Scholar
Harley, B., and Swain, M.. 1978. An analysis of the verb system used by young learners of French. Interlanguage Studies Bulletin 3.35–79.Google Scholar
Krashen, S. D. 1977. The monitor model for adult second language performance. Viewpoints on English as a second language, ed. by Burt, M., Dulay, H., and Finocchiaro, M., 152–61. New York: Regents.Google Scholar
Labov, W. 1965. On the mechanism of linguistic change. Georgetown University Series on Language and Linguistics 18.91–114.Google Scholar
Lamendella, J. T. 1969. On the irrelevance of transformational grammar to second language pedagogy. Language Learning 19.255–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lamendella, J. T. 1977. General principles of neurofunctional organization and their manifestation in primary and nonprimary language acquisition. Language Learning 27:155–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lamendella, J. T. (To appear). Genetically based neural idiosyncracies as the primary etiology of specific language disabilities in children.Google Scholar
Nemser, W. 1971. Approximative systems of foreign language learners. IRAL 9.115–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oyama, S. 1975. A sensitive period for the acquisition of a non-native phonological system. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 5.261–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pike, K. L. 1960. Nucleation. The Modern Language Journal 44.291–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosansky, E. 1975. The critical period for the acquisition of language: some cognitive developmental considerations. Working Papers on Bilingualism 6.93–100.Google Scholar
Schumann, J. 1976. Social distance as a factor in second language acquisition. Language Learning 26.135–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scovel, T. 1977. The ontogeny of the ability to recognize foreign accents. Proceedings of the Los Angeles Second Language Research Forum, ed. by Henning, C. A., 38–47. Los Angeles: Linguistics Department, University of Southern California.Google Scholar
Scovel, T., and Lamendella, J. T.. 1978. A typology of ontological factors in second language acquisition. Paper read before the Los Angeles Second Language Research Forum, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Selinker, L. 1969. The psychologically relevant data of second-language learning. The psychology of second language learning, ed. by Pimsleur, P. and Quinn, T., 35–43. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Selinker, L. 1972. Interlanguage. IRAL 10.209–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Selinker, L., and Lamendella, J. T.. (To appear). Fossilization in interlanguage learning. On TESOL 78, ed. by J. Schacter and C. Blatchford.Google Scholar
Selinker, L., and Lamendella, J. T.. (To appear). Two perspectives on fossilization in interlanguage learning. Interlanguage Studies Bulletin.Google Scholar
Selinker, L., and Lamendella, J. T., Swain, M., and Dumas, G.. 1975. The interlanguage hypothesis extended to children. Language Learning 25.139–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Selinker, L., and Lamendella, J. T., Swain, M., and Dumas, G., and Trimble, L.. 1974. Formal written communication and ESL. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication 4.81–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slobin, D. I. 1973. Cognitive prerequisites for the development of grammar. Studies of child language development, ed. by Ferguson, C. A. and Slobin, D. I., 175–208. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.Google Scholar
Smith, D. M. 1972. Some implications for the social status of pidgin languages. Sociolinguis-tics in cross-cultural analysis, ed. by Smith, D. M. and Shuy, R., 47–56. Washington: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Tarone, E., Frauenfelder, U., and Selinker, L.. 1976. Systematicity/variability and stability/instability in interlanguage systems. Papers in second language acquisition, ed. by H. D. Brown. Language Learning (Spec. Issue) 4.93–134.Google Scholar
Vigil, N., and Oller, J. W.. 1976. Rule fossilization: a tentative model. Language Learning 26.281–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Witherspoon, G. 1977. Language and art in the Navajo universe. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar