On Learner Language Analysis

殷月洪

1.Definition of learner language

Language learning is a constructive process， in which learners construe the target language based on the acquired rules of grammar and syntax. However， the language that learners produce at early or later stages of the acquisition is different from the standard norms or in other words deviant form the target language from the socio-linguistic， psycholinguistic and pragmatic point of views.

Language learning is also a dynamic process； in the learning process， learners are constantly making mistakes or errors on the way towards the goal of becoming the ideal target language users. This dynamic process can be illustrated by a continuum on which learners move from L1 users to the L2 learners and users. On the continuum we can see the learner language is changing and influenced by many factors that have been discussed thoroughly by many researchers in the field of L2 acquisition. Amongst the factors， the learners L1 and L2 knowledge has been regarded as a significant one affecting the second language development.

In view of the above discussion， learner language can be possibly defined as the developmental language system created by language learners during the process of L2 acquisition， which is manifested by errors that account for the learners L1 and L2 influence on the L2 development.

2.A Literature review of the research on learner language analysis

2.1 CA period

From 1940s to late 1960s， some researchers conducted Contrastive Analysis （CA） by comparing and contrasting learners L1 and L2 systematically. Charles Fries， one of the leading linguistics of the day， identified the areas of similarity and difference between particular native languages and target languages for pedagogical purposes， e.g. for material construction. He claimed： “The efficient materials are those that are based upon a scientific description of the language to be learned， carefully compared with a parallel description of the native language of the learner.” （Larsen-Freeman & Long， 2000， p. 52）.

From the above review， we can assume that errors result from the differences between learners L1 and L2. In addition， according to the underlying assumptions of CA hypothesis， we can see that errors occur as linguistic differences exist in the learning process and “second language learning basically involved the overcoming of the differences between the two linguistic systems — the native and target languages.” （Brown， 2000）

2.2 The rationale of CA

The rationale of CA hypothesis is found in behaviorism， which is concerned with how learning takes place. The behaviorist approach to language development looks at language acquisition from the viewpoint of habit formation， which maintains that the language acquisition is “a product of habit formation” （Johnson， 2001， p.42） and when new habit is learned， old habits still lingers and exerts influence on the learning process. Based on this rationale， CA assumes that errors occurred as a result of interference when learners transfer “habits” of L1 to those of L2. Since errors take place when habits of the L1 and L2 differ， it is possible to anticipate the difficult areas in learner language in order to address the errors more effectively. Many linguistics made strong claims for CA hypothesis， one of them is Robert Lado， who in the preface to Linguistics Across Cultures claimed that “… we can predict and describe the patterns that will cause difficulty in learning， and those that will not cause difficulty， by comparing systematically the language and the culture to be learned with the native language and culture of the student.” （Lado， 1957， cited in Brown， 2000， p.208）

2.3 The flaws of CA

Following behaviorism came the mentalist view of language acquisition， which was initiated by Chomsky who challenged the behaviorism by his acquisition arguments in his 1959 classic review of Skinners Verbal Behavior. Chomsky held the view that language acquisition is not “a product of habit formation”； rather it is a product of rule formation. He put forward the mentalist account of language acquisition by positing a Language Acquisition Device （LAD）， a mechanism set in humans brain that “assigns structure to utterances it receives and constructs a generative grammar of linguistic competence out of the samples of language it encounters.” （Cook， 2000， pp， 15-16）

While these flaws of CA hypothesis are apparent， its influence on the research of the second language acquisition was not completely phased out. The sustained interest of investigating the impact of L1 on L2 acquisition has been strongly present in the research circle.

2.4 EA period

Before EA was accepted as a part of applied linguistics， the analysis of errors in learner language had long been a traditional practice in language pedagogy， and even today such analysis is carried out by many in the area of EFL/ESL teaching and research. For example Turton and Heaton compiled a Longman Dictionary of Common Errors （Broadview Press Editorial Board； Turton & Heaton）. However， the traditional and contemporary analysis of error “l(fā)acked both a rigorous methodology and a theoretical framework for explaining the role played by errors in the process of L2 acquisition.” （Ellis， 1997， p. 48）

Pit Corder， an applied linguistics， contributed much to the development of EA. In 1968， he proposed the concept of inbuilt syllabus， which means that learners follow an internally preset learning sequence. My understanding of this concept is that， according to this syllabus， the input that learners are supposed to receive will not necessarily generate the intake learners are expected to get. The development of L2 acquisition by learners should follow the internal syllabus， an inbuilt guiding framework that shapes the development of learner language， which is regarded as a transitional system. Because of this syllabus， errors are likely to occur when learners are unable to process the input before any intake is secured.

3. Conclusion.

Learner language is no longer considered as a faulty version of the target language， since the learner language system is “a legitimate system of language in its own right” （Brown， 2000， p. 215）， though the system is imperfect in terms of errors in various categories. The researches in the past investigated the learner language in the hope to discover the rules governing the acquisition of the second language； many have attempted to analyze errors that are inevitably inherent in the learner language. The researches on the error analysis and to a larger extent on the learner language analysis may be problematic， but the learner language analysis is both theoretically intriguing to shed new light on the L2 acquisition and pedagogically instructive to facilitate the development of learner language. The strategies of treating learner language errors are based on the past theoretical research and empirical evidences， and the strategies discussed in this essay are of practical value in EFL teaching context.

References：

[1] Broadview Press Editorial Board. （1988）. The broadview book of common errors in English. Peterborough： Broadview Press Ltd.

[2] Brown， H. D. （2000）. Principles of language learning and teaching. NY： Pearson Education Company

[3] Chamot， A. （1979）. Grammatical problems in learning English as a third language. In E. Hatch （Ed.）， Second Language Acquisition （pp.175-189）. Mass： Newbury House.

[4] Cook， V. （2000）. Linguistics and second language acquisition. Beijing： Foreign Language Teaching and Resarch Press

[5] Ellis， R. （1997）. The study of second language acquisition. Oxford： Oxford University Press

[6] Tarone， E.， & Parrish， B. （1994）. Task-related variation in interlanugage： the case of articles. In H. G. Brown & S. T. Gonzo （Eds）. Readings on second laguae acquisition （pp.281-305）. NJ： Prentice Hall Regents.