Все
 
 
 


Интерязык: типы, этапы, причины
 
Код статьиS271291870017143-3-1
DOI
Тип публикации Статья
Статус публикации Опубликовано
Авторы
Рогозная Нина Николаевна 
Должность: профессор
Аффилиация: ФГБОУ ВО «Государственный институт русского языка им. А.С. Пушкина»
Адрес: Российская Федерация,
Сюе Ли
Должность: аспирант
Аффилиация: ФГБОУ ВО «Байкальский государственный университет»
Адрес: Российская Федерация, Иркутск
Название журналаРоссийский журнал исследований билингвизма
ВыпускТеоретические и прикладные аспекты исследования билингвизма в фокусе научных дискуссий
Страницы43-49
Аннотация

Interlanguage is an independent language system that emerges in the process of learning a foreign language by a student. Its place is the position between the mother-tongue and the language being studied, so it is called an intermediate language. In this paper, the interlanguage is analyzed in detail from the point of view of the causes, characteristics of types, stages of existence, as well as factors influencing its formation.

Ключевые словаinterlanguage, language system, native language, studied language, intermediate language, causes, characteristics, stages, factors of influence.
Получено16.10.2021
Дата публикации22.10.2021
Кол-во символов17621
Цитировать   Скачать pdf Для скачивания PDF необходимо авторизоваться
100 руб.
При оформлении подписки на статью или выпуск пользователь получает возможность скачать PDF, оценить публикацию и связаться с автором. Для оформления подписки требуется авторизация.

Оператором распространения коммерческих препринтов является ООО «Интеграция: ОН»
1 Introduction
2 The term “interlanguage” was first introduced by the American linguist L. Selinker in 1972. It refers to the system of internal language created by a student at a certain time or to the interconnected language system built by him during a certain educational process. Based on pragmatic goals, the individual gradually forms his own language structure and builds his own learning track. The language system of interlanguage is relatively independent and includes elements and units of both native and non-native languages in its structure. According to many researchers [12, p. 263; 9, p. 209; 10, p. 64; 8, p. 8] interlanguage is the “only way” to learn a second language. From the point of view of cognitive linguistics, such an intermediate system in the process of learning a native language is formed as a result of insufficient awareness of the language material and generates non-standard actions that lead to interferents of various kinds. Intermediate competence is an immature, imperfect form, but it is a “living”, not a “dead” language, starting with the native language and gradually approaching the studied one. Thus, it has the essence of natural language, its own system and communicative-limited scope of use. The American scholar C. Adjemian, identified three main components [1]: a) permeability – in the process of developing a second language, new language units are able to either penetrate the student's interlanguage system or linger. Therefore, the interlanguage is not a certain closed system, but an open entity capable of constantly “absorbing” new knowledge. With the delay in the penetration of units and their elements is associated with such a phenomenon as ossification. b) ossification – on the one hand, the phenomenon in the interlanguage, when such a level of ownership is reached, which is far from perfect. On the other hand, students, having reached the level of partial competence of some specific forms of language, after achieving some success in communication, enter into a state of “stagnation”, “petrification” or “ossification”. After N.N. Rogoznaya, we will use the term “ossification” as the most successful and precisely reflecting the state of this phase of the interlanguage. This feature was first noticed by L. Selinker [9], and then received further development in other works [6, p. 8; 5, p. 68; 13, p. 191]. L. Selinker believed that only 5% of students can reach the same level as native speakers. In modern conditions of unprecedented demand for foreign languages, the threshold of proficiency of native speakers of coordinate bilingualism has increased to 7% - 8%. (most often, the accent problem is seen only at the super-segment level.) c) relapse (reduction, significant slowdown in the growth of language competence or stop) – this means that the interlanguage is gradually moving to the normative level of the target language, but this process is not direct; and has its “repetitions” and “bends” in the form of a large number of diachronic cycles. This fact says that some of the issues that are fixed earlier, tend to appear again (Rogoznaya N.N. characterizes this phase as a “rollback of knowledge”).
3 Material and Methods
4 It is noticed that interlanguage can exist in three states [6, p. 10]: 1) dynamic bilingualism, characterized by purification from surrogate impurities (the most common phenomenon in classroom practice); 2) ossification, operation without changing when you reach a certain level; 3) dying because of lack of its demand. Based on these characteristics of the interlanguage, its features can be summarized as follows: 1. The independence of interlanguage is that this intermediate language system differs from the native and studied languages. It cannot be considered as “a simple mixture” that occurs in the process of learning a foreign language, under the influence of strong interference from the native language and the student. Interlanguage builds its unique language rules that do not exist either in the native (L1) nor in the studied (L2) language. 2. The interlanguage stages are not fixed. This is a dynamic process that progressively approaches the normative form of the language being studied as the student's level of learning deepens. During the learning process, students constantly adjust their language behavior. By adapting their language behavior to the habits of use on the L2, the individual is freed from mistakes, moving in the right direction. From the point of view of speech errors, the interlanguage can be divided into four stages: the first stage is unregulated mistakes. At this stage the student only vaguely realizes that the target language has a different structure, but does not understand its structure. Errors of such a level N.N. Rogoznaya qualifies as infra-mistakes, i.e. deviations that are “beyond the threshold of understanding” at this stage from the point of view of psycholinguistics [8, p. 40]. During this period an interlanguage system is formed and the interference field is represented by a large number of interferents. These errors are usually irregular and inconsistent. At this point they cannot be fully explained and corrected. The second phase is heuristic (phase of sudden insight). At this stage, the understanding of a non-native language gradually becomes consistent and more conscious. The individual begins to master the studied language structure and carry out internal analysis, internalization (the process of mastering external structures, as a result of which they become internal regulators) of the studied rules. Despite the fact that students master certain rules, they, due to lack of practice, violate them. The errors of this stage cannot be explained and corrected completely due to the instability of the new system, which is characterized by the phenomenon of knowledge rollback (return to the pre-or intermediate stage). The third stage is formation of structural and systemic relations of a non-native language. Language use at this stage most often refers to the problems of consistency/inconsistency of language units L2, i.e. grammatical and syntactic inconsistency. Although some of the internalized rules of the target language are incomplete, they represent a kind of connection close to the system of the target language. The obvious feature of this stage is that the individual can correct most of his mistakes himself. The fourth stage is language stability. During this period of language acquisition interferents are relatively small, in general, the system of non-native language is mastered. Language use is more fluent, there is no problem with the semantic component of lexical expressions. The language system of an individual tends to be stable, and mistakes are more often caused by negligence or forgetting a previously known rule. This stage can be characterized as a stage of competencies “grinding”. 3. The dynamics of interlanguage is in constant improvement. In the process of mastering a foreign language speech, the interlanguage is constantly decreasing. Although errors often occur in the interlanguage because the new language rules have powerful extensibility capabilities, it is in constant dynamic processes. Thus, the interlanguage is improved taking into account the efforts of the individual, competence-based innovations and directly depends on the needs of communication. Moving from simple to complex, from low to higher, it gradually “leaves” L1, approaching L2. 4. Systematic interlanguage affects the internal organization and consistency of each stage. It is responsible for formation of the correct system in phonology, vocabulary, grammar, syntax creating its own system, which is clearly structured on the basis of positive (transposition) and negative (interference) language material. For example, M. Egorova examines the impact of linguistic and cultural interference on the success of a dialogue discourse [4]. 5. Objective law of interlanguage is a mandatory formation of an intermediate linguistic system regardless of languages that come into contact. Interlanguage is one of the natural forms of language existence, because it has all necessary common characteristics and functions of the human language. In the development of interlanguage eliminates existing errors, but there is a possibility of new ones. It, as children's language, forms a laws system, freeing itself from those elements that have moved from the level of awareness to the level of the subconscious, i.e. automatism.

всего просмотров: 494

Оценка читателей: голосов 0 

1. Adjemian C. On the nature of interlanguage systems // Language Learning. 1976. Vol. 26. P. 297–320.
2. Gardner R., Lambert W. Motivational variables in second language acquisition // R.C. Gardner & W. Lambert (eds.) Attitudes and Motivation in Second Language Learning, Rowley, MA: Newbury House. 1972. P. 119–216.
3. Egorova M.A. Successful / unsuccessful communication as a result of linguocultural interference // Teaching Language and Culture in a Modernized Russia: Challenges and Opportunities: first international conference for efl teachers and researchers (Irkutsk, Russia, 15-16 May 2012). Irkutsk: ISLU. 2012. P. 60–65.
4. Egorova M.A. The impact of linguocultural interference on the success of dialogic communication // Collection of reports of the VI International Scientific and Practical Conference “21st Century: Fundamental Science and Technology” (North Charleston, 20–21 april, 2015, USA). North Charleston. Vol. 2. P. 165–169.
5. Kostyushkina G.M. The role of the system-forming mechanism in system studies of language and speech // Scientific opinion, 2012. No. 9. P. 68–74.
6. Rogoznaya N.N. Description of the case interasia // St. Petersburg: the world of the Russian word, 2012. №3. P. 7–10.
7. Rogoznaya N.N. Linguistic Atlas of violations in the Russian speech of foreigners. Irkutsk: OGUP Irkutsk regional printing house № 1, 2001. 330 p.
8. Rogoznaya N.N. Linguistic typology of the interference in the Russian language to foreigners. Irkutsk: publishing house of the Irkutsk national research technical University, 2018. 248 p.
9. Selinker L. Interlanguage // Int. Rev. Applied Linguistics. 1972. Vol. 10. P. 209–231.
10. Vinogradov V.A. Linguistic aspects and language teaching. On the problem of foreign accent in phonetics. Moscow, 1976. vol. 2. 64 p.
11. Weinreich W. Monolingualism and multilingualism // New in linguistics: SB. M., 1973. Vol. VI. P. 23 – 61.
12. Weinreich, W. Language contacts. Kyiv: SHK.; Izd-vo in Kiev. univ., 1979. 263 p.
13. Zavyalova A.G. About some of the causes of imperfect knowledge of a foreign language by students of non-linguistic University // Izvestia Irkutsk state economic Academy. 2016. Vol. 6, №2. P. 191–196.
14. 文秋芳,1995, 英语成功者与不成功者在学习方法上的差异外语教学与研究第3期.
15. 文秋芳, 王海啸, 1996, 大学生英语学习观念与策略的分析 [J], 解放军外语学院学报第4期.

Система Orphus

Загрузка...
Вверх