1

TEACHER AWARENESS OF INTERLANGUAGE IN STUDENTS WRITING TEST

Yunita Uswatun Khasanah Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia

Homepage: www.hawsu.com/ email: 9uswah@gmail.com

Abstract: Interlanguage has been an area of interest of both linguist and experts on pedagogy since 1960s. By

locating and identifying interlanguage in learner’s language, one can see 1) the stage of

students/speaker development in second/foreign language acquisition; and 2) the internal mechanism

of how a language acquisition works. This paper is descriptive in nature and attempts to 1) locating and

identifying the error students made and the possible explanation behind the occurrence, and 2)

teacher’s/assessor’s awareness of the interlinguality behind the error committed by students through

the feedback given and how teacher/assessors proceed with the language instruction after such

feedback is given. Teacher/assessor awareness of interlanguage is crucial in the process of teaching

learning since such language system should be corrected to avoid fossilization of error committed by

students. The corpus of data comprises of 10 students writing test sheets and 10 teachers’ feedback

sheets. The result of the study reveals that students show several symptom of interlanguage. However,

the teacher does not seem to understand the ‘gravity’ of the situation through the feedback given for

students’ error.

Keywords: interlanguage, language awareness, formative test

Introduction Two kinds of tests that are crucial in language teaching learning activity are summative test and

formative test. Summative test is defined as any assessment activity that is used as a judgment to

students’ performance while formative one is any assessment that creates feedback about students’

performance and is used to enhance or accelerate the teaching learning process. In other word,

summative test is an evaluation of learning and formative test is an evaluation for learning.

Consequently, the first test brings mark that is used to determine students’ grade whereas the latter

does not. The present paper deals with the formative test and formative feedback in writing class.

Through the definition of formative test above, it can be said that feedback is an important part of the

test and, in a larger picture, of the teaching learning activity itself. Through feedback students can gain

information and correction of their learning situation and accelerate the process (Irons, 2008). It can

2

also be used as a tool to accelerate learning and help students develop their own self-regulated learning

process (Nicole and Dick, 2006). Teacher can also gain benefit from this since to give one means she

should be able to locate the error/mistake committed by students. Locating error/mistake is not only for

the sake of feedback itself. Beyond that, a teacher is provided with myriad useful information about 1)

students position in the developmental spectrum and 2) the way language is acquired and the

mechanism of language acquisition in students’ mind.

Regarding those two information contained in students error/mistake aforementioned, De Bot, et al.

(2005) suggested that they are the point of interest for two kinds of people. The first information is used

by pedagogic expert, in this case is the teacher, to design what is best course material in classroom and

the second information is important for linguist. However, as Hales (1997) pointed out, language

teacher hold three important roles, namely: 1) language user, 2) language teacher, and 3) language

analyst. As a language user, she should use language functionally. Thus, skill to use language at the

pragmatic level is an absolute necessity. As language teacher, she should be able to deliver material and

meet all the requirements of being a teacher. However, for the role number three, even though it is

closely related to the linguistic aspects of a language, a teacher should not necessarily be a linguist.

What a language teacher needs to be is, in fact, become language aware. Being language aware means

being conscious of language form, function, and the role of it in real text, spoken and written, and how

those texts operate in certain context (Carter, 1995).

Language aware is defined as a sensitivity of any grammatical, lexical, and phonological features and the

effect of meaning brought about different forms (Hales, 1997). Research conducted by McNeill (year)

involving NNS of English teachers whose mother tongue was Cantonese revealed that those who were

most language aware were proven to be more sensitive about students difficulties and could help

students learning language better with more effective instructional practices than those who less

language aware. Study conducted by Carter (1995) also showed that by being more language aware,

teachers are deemed more powerful in their teaching-learning process.

Connecting the dots of 1) formative test and formative feedback, 2) error/mistake committed by

students, and 3) language awareness, this paper aim to explore the interlanguage phenomenon in

students formative writing test, aim to analyze whether or not teacher gives proper feedback, and

seeking whether or not teacher is language aware enough in locating and identifying the error/mistake

in students writing.

3

Interlanguage

Interlanguage becomes the red thread connecting the dots aforementioned in the introduction above

since it contains information about students’ language learning development, how language acquisition

works, and in teaching learning context it becomes teacher’s duty to overcome this phenomenon

through corrective/formative feedback.

The term interlanguage was firstly coined by Selingker that can be defined as a hybrid of L1 and the

target language system. This phenomenon happens temporarily and is governed by rules that are

according to Selingker (as cited by Ellis, 1994) the product of 5 main cognitive processes, as follows:

1. Overgeneralization, meaning that the rules of the interlanguage is a product of

overgeneralization of the target language (L2) specific rules and feature;

2. Transfer of training, meaning that some component of interlanguage system is derived from

what the learner had already been taught before;

3. Strategies of second language learning, meaning that some component of the system is the

product of learner strategy to simplify the system of L2;

4. Strategies for second language communication, meaning that the rules of L2 is a product of

learner’s attempt to communicate with L2 native speaker; and

5. Language transfer, meaning that some (not necessarily all) component of L2 might be

influenced by that of L1.

Interlanguage is manifested through error committed by students/language learner and it has its own

independent system in learner’s language. Therefore, it is imperative for any teacher not to see and

treat error in negative light. Mizuno (1990) stated that human learning is a process which involves

generating error; he believed that the occurrence of error is needed in the process of learning. This

statement is supported by De Bot, et al (2005) who believed that error is a necessity since committing

one means engaging in a learning journey. However, Corder (1981) implied that error is important yet

should be mitigated systematically.

The process of mitigating error in a systematic ways in language learning is important since it will

prevent fossilization of such error. Fossilization is a state in which the incorrect form or use of language

aspect such as linguistic items, rules, and sub-system is stabilized within one’s dynamic system theory

(De Bot et al, 2005; Selingker, 1972). This deviation from standard and correct use of language stays with

the user no matter how much amount of explanation or instruction is given. Therefore, giving an

4

intervention to students who are still in interlanguage state is important. One of the ways is through

formative feedback.

Interlanguage Variation

Corder (in Adamson, 2009) grouped variety of interlanguage into two categories:

1. Vertical variation. This category involves the acquisition of basic forms of the language. There is

a gradual replacement of categorial rules, interference, of L1 and L2. Example of this kind of

interlanguage is as follows:

IL construction L2 construction

I no smoke I do not smoke

2. Horizontal variation. This category refers to a condition in which learners have acquired

sociolinguistic competence, whether they have acquired the frequencies of appropriate use of

language in the speech community based on their gender, age, and social class.

In the book, Adamson (2009) presented three research examples concerning vertical variation of

interlanguage. The first example was one done by William and Tessa Labov in 1976 who had studied the

language development of their own kid, particularly in regard to the wh- question and subject inversion.

The result of the research shows that their kid’s model of development was more detailed than mere

categorial rule, and that it was inconclusive about the occurrence of subject—verb inversion in wh-

question construction.

The second example of research in vertical variation of interlanguage was the one conducted by L.

Dickinson in 1974 concerning Japanese student’s acquisition of /r/ production who lived in United

States. The result of the study suggests that after sometimes living in the certain linguistic

environments, the student could produce accurate /r/. The effect of the environment also changed after

the student gained sufficient English proficiency.

The last example presented was concerning the use of strategy in negative sentence by an adult

immigrant from Costa Rica. The research showed that the subject, a 33 year old Spanish-speaking

person, after 9 months of study had activated a mental program for negation with doesn’t and it stayed

partially activated for immediate subsequent use. The first time the subject came to The State, the

negative sentence he used was ‘I no smoke’, while with the acquisition of the mental program, he

5

started using ‘I don’t smoke’. After using ‘don’t’ in a negative sentence, he tended to use it in later

subsequent negative sentence.

A similar research example presented was the one conducted by Young in 1991 concerning a Chinese

speaking subject who tended to use plural –s after demonstrative pronoun, numeral, and quantifier. So

it was likely that the subject would use plural –s of a noun phrase in: “I need several books” rather than

“I need books”.

This paper, however, only addresses the vertical variation of interlanguage. Therefore, 5 cognitive

processes deemed responsible for interlanguage construction according to Selingker (as cited by Ellis,

1994) will be cut into three only: 1) overgeneralization, 2) simplify of L2, and 3) L1 intervenes. The

reason for this is related to the role of researcher who is not the teacher and is not involved in the

teaching/learning activity or language training. Therefore, to analyze the effect of transfer training will

be impossible, as to analyze the strategy used by students to communicate with L2 NS. These three

cognitive processes however are in line with vertical variation of IL.

Analyzing Interlanguage

There are two main schools of thought concerning a way to study interlanguage in second/foreign

language learning. The first one is error analysis, and the second one is contrastive analysis. Error

analysis is usually used to see and evaluate the error committed by second language learner to predict

the position of the learner linguistically. Whereas contrastive analysis is an attempt to investigate

second language acquisition process by comparing distinctive elements of the two language’s (L1 and

L2) structure and system inductively. The difference between EA and CA is shown in the table below:

No. Error analysis Contrastive analysis

1. The Focus of this analysis is on the linguistic and cognitive processes

The focus of the analysis is on the input, practice, and inductive learning

2. Multiple types of errors Errors of transfer

3. Scientific orientation Pedagogical orientation

In this study, the one method that is used is contrastive analysis. It is due to the orientation of CA that is

on pedagogy and that it provide scientific base for second language teaching and, in this case,

assessment by teacher. Contrastive analysis, as it is suggested by the name, is trying to compare

component in both languages, to seek the similarity and the difference of L1 and L2.

6

Interlanguage, language awareness, and language teaching

The development of English teaching had started previously with the use of grammar-translation

method, succeeded by the audio-lingual method, and the communicative language teaching.

Communicative language teaching (CLT) that has its root from psycholinguistic approach was

popularized by Krashen. One school of CLT is sociolinguistic one that stressed on the communicative

competence and comprehensible input. The implication of this is a belief that language structure and

language system should not be explicitly taught. Instead, students should acquire the structure and

system implicit and unconsciously.

However, despite of the fact there is a great difference between language learning and language

acquisition, Carter (1995) said that these two method of language teaching method (explicit and

implicit) should not be taken in an opposition way. He argued that learning language involves

understand something of that language and it cannot be developed through a naturalistic exposure.

Explicit teaching of language component should be carried out. He also argued that teaching can and

should be built on existing competence. For example, every learner has innate literary competence;

however this still needs to be developed. He also pointed out that learners are better learners when

they are able to analyses what they are doing and why they are doing it.

Therefore, Carter (1995) pointed out that it is best to integrate both methods into classroom activity. He

believed that by doing such integration L2 language development can be approached consciously and

unconsciously and both conditions is not necessarily in opposite position. As a great proponent of

integration of explicit grammar teaching into CLT, Carter (1995) believed that it can increase language

awareness that in turn will raise awareness of the language learning strategies for learner. Such

consciousness will lead to a more reflective, flexible, and adaptable learning.

Language awareness covers three main areas as follows:

- A parameter of form

This parameter involves a systematic focus of the formalistic aspects of language. Example for

this parameter is the formation of irregular and regular verb.

- A parameter of function

This parameter involves the understanding of what a language can do, especially in the context

of pragmatic. Therefore, the manifestation always revolved around the relationship of language

and context use.

7

- Aar parameter of socio-cultural meaning

All three of them can be analyzed using contrastive principle. The parameter used in this paper is the

first one. The feedback given by teacher is seen to seek whether or not it is sensitive toward the

deviation/error made by students regarding the form of contrastive formal aspect of L1 and L2.

Data and methodology

In this study, there are two sets of data. The first is in regard of students writing test and the

interlanguage in it; and the second one is in regard to teacher language awareness reflected through the

feedback given to such interlanguage.

As the corpus of the data, the sample is taken from 10 students’ writing test. According Pallotti (2010)

the sample in investigating interlingual aspect of second language acquisition does not need to be large

since the purpose of the study is not to find a generalization. Students in the sample are those who sit in

the tenth grade of K-12 schools and who are taught English as foreign language. Their L1 background is

Bahasa Indonesia.

The students are instructed to write essay based on the selection of material provided by teacher. Prior

to the writing process, students are guided by teacher of the discourse, of the generic structure of the

essay, and through collaborative writing process with their peer and with the teacher. Each of them is

required to write at least 200 words.

Using contrastive analysis, the first step in data analysis is to separate the language system of L1 and of

L2. Each of them is analyzed independently. The next step is to differentiate features of both languages

and compare them. From this step, information about similarity and dissimilarity in term of structure of

the L1 and L2 can be obtained. Similarity of feature/structure may lead to facilitation while differences

will lead to interference in learning/acquiring second language.

Using the result of the analysis as the baseline, this study will move forward into the feedback given by

teachers. The document of teachers’ feedback will be analyzed on the ground of its sensitivity of the

error.

8

Analysis and Discussion

10 students writing are analyzed to see the error. The error is then categorized based on the cognitive

processes proposed by Selingker (as cited by Ellis, 1994). However, as the role of the researcher is as

outsider who does not involve in the teaching-learning activity or the language training, in the data

analysis, point 2 and 4 of the category will not be addressed. The error are then counted and collected.

From the corpus, it can be drawn the error made by students categorized into 3:

No. Category Total number

1. Overgeneralization 29.54%

2. Simplify of l2 27.27%

3. L1 influence 43.18%

From the table above, it is shown that mostly students’ error is committed as a product of L1 influence,

43.18%. 29.54 % is due to the overgeneralization, and some 27.27% of error is caused by the attempt to

simplify the system of L2.

Below are several examples of error committed by students, regarding the formalistic aspect of

language:

No. L1 L2

1. Turtle-turtles are amphibian Turtles are amphibian

Kura-kura adalah amfibi Turtle is amphibian

In this example, student literally translated /kura-kura/ into /turtle-turtle/ whereas it should only be

/turtle/. The influence of L1 is so obvious in which kura-kura is a repetition word to refer to a certain

animal. Also, In English, to refer to general thing, singular subject is used instead of plural, hence the to

be used is /is/ instead of /are/

This error made by students is closely related to the cognitive process of L1 influence.

9

No. L1 L2

2. Said 80 percent certain that the LA Galaxy will stop off in South East Asia en route to their friendly game in Melbourne.

It is ensured that LA Galaxy will ...

Dipastikan 80 persen yakin bahwa LA Galaxy akan singgah di Asia tenggara dalam perjalanannya menuju pertandingan persahabatan di Melbourne.

In this example, the error is related to passive construction that occurs in both languages. However, it is

usually used in written mode rather than in spoken mode. In English, passive construction is manifested

through the use of be+past participle whereas in Bahasa Indonesia, the verb is simply added with prefix

di- and the reversion of subject-object position. Passive construction is used to emphasize the theme of

the clause. If in the active construction, the focus is on the subject/doer/agent, in passive construction

it is on the object, goal, or range of the clause.

However, in English, whether in passive or active construction, the subject of a clause should always be

there. The subject can be non-content word, existential ‘there’, or dummy word. In Bahasa Indonesia,

one can simply using verb at the beginning of a clause by adding prefix-di only. This kind of construction

prevalent in data pool.

This error made by students is closely related to cognitive process of L1 influence.

No. L1 L2

3 She focused on his career and becomes a singer

She focused on her career and became a singer

Dia memfokuskan diri pada karirnya dan menjadi penyanyi

The focus is not on tenses concept, yet.

In English, the use of pronoun is more varied than that in Bahasa Indonesia. The difference is mainly

shown in the third person singular form. In Bahasa Indonesia, third singular person is simply referred to

as ‘dia’ regardless of the gender. In English, it depends on the gender ‘he’ for male, and ‘she’ is for

female. This concept is not yet acquired fully by the sample of the research and error in this area is

abundant. The genitive –nya, that refers to the possessive pronoun in Bahasa Indonesia also applicable

for both gender, whereas in English it should be ‘her’ for female and ‘his’ for male.

This error made by students is related to cognitive process L1 influence.

10

No. L1 L2

4. Irfan Bachdim is naturalization player from Netherland.

Irfan Bachdim is a naturalized player from Netherland.

Irfan Bachdim adalah pemain naturalisasi dari Belanda.

Naturalization was basically an English word borrowed by Bahasa Indonesia. Originally, the category of this word is noun. To use it back in the context of this clause, it should be used as an adjective, modifying the word ‘player’ naturalized.

The case of mixed-formation in L1 and L2 is also shown in the data pool. The –ion formation of word is

shown as a strategy to convey meaning by making the word in L1 sound ‘English-ish’.

This error made by students is the result of cognitive process of simplifying the system of L2 regarding

different word class and word category. It also has a little bit influence of L1 since the student who

committed the error was still thinking the word /naturalization/ in Bahasa Indonesia mind frame.

No. L1 L2

5. Irfan Bachdim who leaves the trening. Irfan Bachdim who leaves the training.

Irfan Bachdim meninggalkan pelatihan.

6. It is very difficult to win exep there is ... It is very difficult to win except there is...

Sangat sulit untuk menang kecuali ...

7. This moment is very rarely because knowdays ...

This moment is very rare because nowadays...

Another word formation is constructed by transcribing the pronunciation of the L2 words using L1

transcribing system. This case is related to phonetic transcription..

These errors made by students are the result of cognitive process of L1 influence. Bahasa Indonesia is a

language system in which what is transcribed is similar to what is pronounced. It uses Latin alphabetic

system with the same punctuation and capitalization role as in other countries that use it. However,

in its written form, Bahasa Indonesia has its own system. Consonants are represented in a way

similar to Italian, although ‹c› is always /tʃ/ (like English ‹ch›), ‹g› is always /ɡ/ ("hard") and ‹j›

represents /dʒ/ as it does in English. In addition, ‹ny› represents the palatal nasal /ɲ/, ‹ng› is used

for the velar nasal /ŋ/ (which can occur word-initially), ‹sy› for /ʃ/ (English ‹sh›). Whereas English is

not.

11

No. L1 L2

8. It not true because it can broken the language or can be same with alay.

It is not right since it breaks the language rules and it is similar to alay phenomena.

Ini tidak benar karena bisa merusak bahasa dan sama dengan alay.

In the data pool, there are many attempt committed by students to directly translate the clause phrase

by phrase without reorganizing them into the acceptable phrase in English construction. In this case,

there is interference from L1 construction system in to L2 acquisition.

This error made by students reflects the process of acquisition of basic forms of the language. There is a

gradual replacement of categorial rules, interference, of L1 and L2.

No. L1 L2

9. This article about a book title Kotak Mimpi This article is about a book entitled Kotak Mimpi.

Artikel ini tentang sebuah buku berjudul Kotak Mimpi.

The transformation of language structure can also be in term of the absence of tenses marking ‘be’. In

Indonesia, the language system does not recognize the existence of be as a tenses marking or as a

predicative marking in a clause.

This error made by students is related to the influence of L1 cognitive process.

The second data analysis is concerning teacher feedback to students writing

test

According to the language awareness component proposed by Carter (1995), there are three main areas

of coverage that shows teacher level of language awareness in giving the feedback: form, function, and

socio-cultural meaning. From the data set, it is found that students have committed 44 errors related to

interlanguage construction. However, the feedback given by teacher is counted far less than that, most

of which given for its language awareness point. However so, teacher does not explicitly show students

the metalinguistic aspect of English. Some of the corrections given are as follows:

12

1. Punctuation

Teacher marked the error in using punctuation in students’ writing. However, the punctuation

system of both languages is the same, such as the use of capital letter in the initial part of a

sentence, period at the end part, to marking someone’s name, etc. There is nothing to be

compared. Therefore, this kind of feedback is not related to interlainguality in students’ writing

test.

2. Words choice

There are several diction/word choices picked up by students to convey their message in L2.

Some of the words have the same meaning in Bahasa Indonesia context, but transferred to

English, the different word contains different semantic meaning. However, the feedback given

by teacher does not identify student’s interlanguage stage. Instead of correcting students’ error,

teacher directly provides students with alternative word that has different meaning with what

the students intended to say.

3. Plural/singular

The correction teacher made regarding the concept of singular and plural in English still related

to what kind of subject used and what is the appropriate corresponding verb inflection and be

(are/is). The notion of what subject should be plural or singular is not addressed in the feedback.

4. Structure

Most of the correction to students’ error in structure is given by asking students: “What do you

want to say?” There is a fallacy in the question itself. Teacher did not aware of interlanguage

shown through the error by identifying and analyzing the latent meaning behind the structure of

students’ clause.

The teacher seemed to have adequate language awareness. However, she sometimes seemed to be

hesitate to explicitly show the flaw of students error by showing the correct structure of the language

used.

13

Conclusion

This study is descriptive in nature and is only showing the topology of students’ error in their writing

assignment as a symptom of their SLA development stage. It has started off with the theoretical

foundation of the research and gone to the analysis of students’ writing test and teacher’s feedback

given.

From the data collected, students shows interlanguage state through errors in these areas:

1. The concept of plurality and singularity in Bahasa Indonesia and in English

2. Passive construction and subject omission

3. Third person singular, and genitive-‘nya’

4. Word formation

5. Literal structure transformation

Most of the error committed by students is related to the influence of L1 system. The error also shows

the gradual replacement of categorial rules, interference, of L1 and L2.

However, the feedback given by teacher shows that teacher locate the error as a mistake that needs to

be corrected or erased only, not as a symptom of students’ level of proficiency in acquiring second

language. To be able to spot interlanguage symptom one not only needs to understand grammar of both

language but also to acquire strategic linguistic competence.

From the feedback given though, teacher seems to already have adequate language awareness. What

becomes the hindrance of giving explicit linguistic correction on the structure or grammar could be the

effect of language policy regarding the prohibition of explicit language teaching.

Suggestion for further research might be related to how to educate teacher in spotting the interliguality

in students so that they can make use of the information gathered from the formative test result as a

resource to develop their teaching learning instrument/activity.

14

Reference:

Adamson, H.D. 2009. Interlanguage Variation in Theoretical and Pedagogical Perspective.

New York and London: Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group.

Carter, R. 1995. How Aware Should Language Aware Teachers and Learners be? In Nunan, D.

Et al., (Eds) language Awareness in Language Education. pp. 1-16. Hongkong: Departement

of Curriculum Studies, University of Hongkong.

Corder, S.P. 1981.Error Analysis and Interlanguage. Great Britain: Oxford University Press.

De Bot, et.al.,, K, et al. 2005. Second Language Acquisition; an advanced resource book. New

York: Routledge Taylor and Francis Group.

Ellis, R. 1994. The Study of Second Language Acquisition (Oxford Applied Linguistics). USA:

Oxford University Press.

Hales, T. 1997. Exploring Data-Driven Language Awareness. In ELT Journal Volume 51/3 July.

pp 217-223. Oxford University Press.

Irons, A. 2008. Enhancing Learning Through Formative Assesment and Feedback. New York

and London: Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group.

McNeill, A.( Proceedings of The 16th Conference of Pan-Pcific Association of Applied Linguistics) . Teacher

Language Awareness: Insight from vocabulary knowledge profiles and individual teaching

philosophies. Hongkong: Hongkong University of Science and Technology.

Mizuno, H. 1990. How to analyze interlanguage errors. Japan: Kanagawa University.

Nicol, J and Debra M-Dick. 2006. Formative assessment and self‐regulated learning: a model

and seven principles of good feedback practice, Studies in Higher Education, 31:2, 199-218

Pallotti, G.2010. Doing Interlanguage Analysis in School Context. Eurosla Monographs Seris I.

Communicative Proficiency and Linguistics Development, 159-190.

Selingker, L. 1992. Rediscovering Interlanguage (Applied Linguistics and Language Study).

UK: Longman Group UK limited.

15

Tang, Q and Judith A Johnson. 2002. The relationship between interlanguage, learning and

cross cultural communication. Japan: Faculty of Engineering, Yamaguchi University.