The Analysis of Kurdish EFL Learners’ Interlanguage
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.26750/paperKeywords:
Interlanguage, language learning, English language, error, and fossilizationAbstract
This study tackles the content of interlanguage produced by Kurdish EFL learners. This new form of language is created by language learners during the stages of language learning. Interlanguage differs from native and target language because it is characterized by errors and deviations which are the benchmark of learners’ progress. The study of interlanguage is crucially important because it discusses the performance of the second and foreign language learning on the one hand; it diagnoses the errors and non-errors on the other. The data of the study have been gathered from two groups of freshman and junior students in two different universities using two different tests; spoken and written tests. The main issue of the study is the investigation of errors found in Kurdish EFL learners’ interlanguage which can be restricted to morphological and syntactic errors. Thus, the study aims at providing a general account for the interlanguage and identifying the form of errors committed by Kurdish learners. The study concludes that the majority of Kurdish EFL learners frequently make morphological and syntactical errors due to the existence of some factors mainly the interference of Kurdish upon their interlanguage.
References
Al-Saidat, E. A. (2012). Acquisition of the inflectional morphology of English as a foreign language: an error analysis approach. The Buckingham Journal of Language and Linguistics. 5 (1), PP. 19-37.
Brown, H. D. (2014). Principles of language learning and teaching: a course in second language acquisition. (6th ed.). Longman: Pearson Education.
Corder, S. P. (1967). The significance of learners’ errors. International Review of Applied Linguistics. 5(4), PP. 161-70.
Corder, S. P. (1971). Idiosyncratic dialects and error analysis. International Review of Applied Linguistics. 9 (2), PP. 149-59.
Eliasson, S. (1981). Review article: from languages in contrast to interlanguages. Nordic Journal of Linguistics. 4(2), PP. 161-73.
Ellis, R. & Barkhuizen, G. (2005). Analyzing learner language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Fauziati, E. & Maftuhin, M. (2016). Interlanguage verb tense system of Indonesian EFL learners. Journal of Foreign Languages, Cultures and Civilizations. 4 (2), PP.72-82.
Firth, M. B. (1978). Interlanguage theory: implications for the classroom. Journal of Education. 13 (2), PP. 155-64.
Hinderson, M. T. (1985). The interlanguage notion. Journal of Modern Language Teaching. 21 (3), PP. 23-6.
Keshavarz, M. H. (2014). Contrastive analysis and error analysis. Tahran: Rahnamah.
Michalove, P. A., Georg, S. & Ramer, A. M. (1998). Current issues in linguistic taxonomy. Annual Review of Anthropology. 27, PP. 451-72
Mizuno, H. (1986). Interlanguage analysis of article errors in English among Japanese adult learners in an acquisition-poor environment. Doctoral Dissertation: Colombia University.
Nemser, W. (1971). Approximative systems of foreign language learners. International Review of Applied Linguistics. 9 (2), PP. 115-23.
Richards, J. C. & Schmidt, R. (2002) Longman dictionary of language teaching and applied linguistics. (3rd ed.). Pearson Education.
Rustipa, K. (2011). Contrastive analysis, error analysis, interlanguage and the implication to language teaching. Ragam Journal Pengembangan Humaniora. 11 (1), PP. 16-22.
Selinker, L. (1972). Interlanguage. International Review of Applied Linguistics. 10 (3), PP. 209-31.
Tarone, E. (2013). Interlanguage. In C. A. Chapelle (Ed.). The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell Publishers.
Weinreich, U. (1953). Languages in contact. Hague: Mouton.
