Chapter 5 – Development of learner language

Case Study

An is an English learner who can communicate simple ideas clearly, but he often makes mistakes when he tries to use longer or more complex sentences. In class, he usually says basic sentences such as “I like this book,” but he struggles when he wants to explain ideas like “The student who borrowed my book forgot to return it.” His teacher gives grammar explanations, but An still makes errors in speaking and writing. Sometimes he memorizes useful sentence patterns and uses them well, but at other times he creates new sentences that are not fully correct. An wants to know why his language is developing this way and how he can improve it.

Discussion

1. What does An’s situation tell us about how learner language develops?
2. Why might a learner understand something but still be unable to produce it correctly?
3. What role could grammar instruction play in helping An progress?

Introduction

Learner language refers to the developing linguistic system produced by people who are acquiring a second or foreign language. In SLA research, it is treated as systematic rather than random, because learner output reflects underlying processes of hypothesis formation, restructuring, transfer, and adaptation to input. Two broad ways of studying learner language have been especially influential: cognitive approaches, which focus on learning and processing mechanisms, and linguistic approaches, which focus on the structure and organization of learner output itself (Gass & Selinker, 2008; Selinker, 1972).

General Cognitive Approach

The general cognitive approach explains learner language in terms of mental processes such as attention, memory, categorization, and processing. From this perspective, learners do not simply copy the target language; they actively process input, notice patterns, form generalizations, and gradually build more stable representations of the L2. This tradition is broad rather than unified, but it consistently treats learner language as the outcome of general learning mechanisms interacting with linguistic experience (Gass & Selinker, 2008; Robinson & Ellis, 2008).

A key idea in this tradition is that what learners acquire depends partly on what they attend to. Schmidt’s Noticing Hypothesis argues that features in the input are unlikely to become intake unless learners notice them. In a similar vein, Ellis argues that frequency, salience, contingency, and cue competition shape what learners learn from experience. These proposals make learner language intelligible as the product of selective processing rather than mere exposure alone (Schmidt, 1990; Ellis, 2006).

Development of Learner Language from Cognitivist and Usage-Based Perspectives

Usage-based and emergentist approaches can be understood as part of the broader cognitive tradition. They emphasize that language learning is driven by experience with actual usage events rather than by the direct acquisition of abstract rules in isolation. In this view, grammar emerges gradually from repeated exposure to meaningful patterns, and learner language develops through the accumulation and abstraction of form–meaning pairings over time (Robinson & Ellis, 2008; Ellis, 2002).

These approaches also assign major importance to variability. Learner language is not expected to develop in a perfectly linear way; instead, fluctuation and unevenness are treated as normal features of development. Verspoor, Lowie, and van Dijk (2008) show that variability is not just noise in learner data but can be a sign of developmental change itself. This makes learner language a dynamic system shaped by multiple interacting influences rather than a fixed sequence of stages (Verspoor et al., 2008).

Formula-Based Learning

Formula-based learning highlights the role of formulaic sequences such as collocations, lexical bundles, and other multiword units in SLA. Rather than learning only isolated words and grammar rules, learners often acquire recurrent chunks that can later support fluency, accuracy, and more complex language use. Wray argues that formulaic language is central to how language is processed and learned, not a peripheral phenomenon (Wray, 2002).

Research in SLA supports this view. Ellis, Simpson-Vlach, and Maynard (2008) show that formulaic language is psychologically and pedagogically important in both native and second-language use, while Boers et al. (2006) found that the productive use of formulaic sequences was associated with higher perceived oral proficiency. A reasonable conclusion, therefore, is that learner language develops not only through rule abstraction but also through the accumulation and deployment of reusable patterns (Ellis et al., 2008; Boers et al., 2006).

Informal Linguistics Approach

The informal linguistics approach studies learner language by examining the patterns that appear in actual learner production, especially errors, discourse features, and pragmatic performance. One of the best-known methods here is error analysis. Corder argued that learner errors are valuable because they reveal the learner’s current system and the strategies being used to build it. From this perspective, learner language is informative precisely because it departs systematically from the target language (Corder, 1975).

This approach remains useful because it pays close attention to what learners actually say or write. At the same time, it is limited if it focuses only on errors and overlooks successful performance, developmental variability, or underlying competence. For that reason, informal linguistic analysis is often most useful when combined with broader cognitive or developmental accounts (Corder, 1975; Gass & Selinker, 2008).

Formal Linguistics Approach

The formal linguistics approach focuses on the grammatical properties of learner language, especially syntax, morphology, and phonology. It asks what learners know about the target language at a given point and how their developing grammar is constrained. In SLA, this tradition is strongly associated with generative work on Universal Grammar and with attempts to explain learner language in terms of formal principles rather than only performance factors (White, 2003).

A major strength of the formal approach is precision. Because it concentrates on specific structural properties, it can generate clear hypotheses about learner competence and development. However, it has also been criticized for paying less attention to discourse, social context, and communicative use than other approaches. As a result, it is best seen as one important perspective on learner language rather than a complete account of all aspects of L2 development (White, 2003).

Interlanguage

Interlanguage is one of the most important concepts in learner-language research. Selinker introduced the term to describe the evolving linguistic system learners construct as they try to acquire an L2. Interlanguage is not simply a flawed version of the target language or a distorted version of the first language; it is a system in its own right, with rules, regularities, and developmental properties of its own (Selinker, 1972).

This concept remains central because it explains why learner language is systematic, variable, and developmental at the same time. Interlanguage may show transfer from the first language, overgeneralization of L2 patterns, restructuring, and sometimes fossilization, where certain non-target-like forms become persistent. Understanding learner language as interlanguage allows teachers and researchers to interpret learner output as evidence of development rather than simply as failure (Selinker, 1972; Gass & Selinker, 2008).

Future Directions in Interlanguage Research

Interlanguage remains central to SLA because it explains learner language as a developing system rather than as a collection of random errors. Current work increasingly treats interlanguage as variable, dynamic, and shaped by multiple interacting influences, including input, attention, multilingual experience, and instruction. In this sense, the future of interlanguage research is likely to continue moving toward dynamic and usage-sensitive accounts of development rather than static stage models alone (Selinker, 1972; Verspoor et al., 2008; Gass & Selinker, 2008).

A second clear direction is the growing relevance of multilingualism. Research on multilingual development suggests that learner language cannot always be understood only through an L1–L2 contrast, because learners may draw simultaneously on more than one prior language. This makes interlanguage research increasingly compatible with multilingual perspectives that emphasize cross-linguistic interaction and the learner’s full linguistic repertoire (Cenoz, 2013).

Interlanguage as a Dynamic System

One of the most important characteristics of interlanguage is that it is dynamic. Selinker’s original formulation already implied that learner language changes as learners respond to input, transfer, feedback, and communicative needs. Later dynamic-systems work made this point more explicit by arguing that variation is not merely noise in learner data but an inherent property of development itself (Selinker, 1972; Verspoor et al., 2008).

From this perspective, interlanguage does not develop in a perfectly linear way. Learners may show progress, fluctuation, regression, and restructuring at different points, depending on experience and task demands. This view is useful pedagogically because it encourages teachers to interpret variability as part of development rather than simply as inconsistency or failure (Verspoor et al., 2008; Gass & Selinker, 2008).

Interlanguage as a Unique Linguistic System

Interlanguage is also a unique linguistic system. It is not simply the learner’s first language plus some target-language forms, nor is it just an incomplete version of the target language. Rather, it is a separate system with its own internal regularities, produced as learners attempt to make sense of the input and communicate meaning in the L2 (Selinker, 1972).

This uniqueness helps explain why learner language often contains forms that are not straightforwardly predictable from either the L1 or the L2 alone. Learners may overgeneralize target-language rules, simplify structures, or produce innovative combinations that reflect the current state of their developing system. For this reason, interlanguage is best understood as an internally organized learner system rather than as mere error (Selinker, 1972; Gass & Selinker, 2008).

Interlanguage as a Creative System

Interlanguage is also creative because learners use available linguistic resources strategically to express meanings they cannot yet encode in fully target-like ways. This creativity can appear in paraphrase, approximation, chunk use, transfer, and inventive combinations of forms. Formulaic language research is relevant here because it shows that learners often rely on prefabricated sequences and reusable patterns as building blocks for communication and development (Wray, 2002; Ellis et al., 2008).

Seen this way, learner creativity is not peripheral to acquisition. It is one of the mechanisms through which learners maintain communication while gradually expanding their linguistic system. Interlanguage therefore reflects not only deficiency but also adaptation and problem solving in real time (Wray, 2002; Gass & Selinker, 2008).

Four Interlanguage Processes

A useful way to describe interlanguage development is through several recurring processes that appear in learner language. These include simplification, overgeneralization, restructuring, and U-shaped behavior. Such processes are not separate theories of SLA, but descriptive patterns that help explain how learner systems evolve over time (Selinker, 1972; Gass & Selinker, 2008).

Simplification occurs when learners reduce linguistic complexity in order to make production or comprehension more manageable. This may involve omitting grammatical markers, using high-frequency vocabulary, or relying on simpler constructions. Simplification is especially common in earlier phases of development, but it can occur at any level when task demands are high (Selinker, 1972; Gass & Selinker, 2008).

Overgeneralization occurs when learners extend a rule beyond its appropriate range, as in applying a regular past-tense ending to an irregular verb. Although these forms are non-target-like, they are important evidence that learners are actively constructing patterns rather than merely copying what they hear. In that sense, overgeneralization reflects development, not simple carelessness (Selinker, 1972; Gass & Selinker, 2008).

Restructuring refers to a reorganization of the learner’s internal system. As new evidence accumulates, learners may revise earlier hypotheses and build more accurate or more complex representations. This means that development is not only additive; it can involve substantial reanalysis of previously learned material, which is why learners sometimes appear to regress before improving again (Verspoor et al., 2008; Gass & Selinker, 2008).

U-shaped behavior describes a pattern in which learners appear to use a form correctly, then produce non-target-like forms, and later return to correct use. This pattern is often interpreted as evidence that learners initially rely on memorized or unanalyzed forms, then overgeneralize a productive rule, and finally reorganize the system more successfully. It supports the broader view that learner language develops dynamically rather than in a straight line (Verspoor et al., 2008).

Development of Syntax

The development of syntax in second language acquisition is gradual and constrained by what learners are developmentally ready to process and produce. Research on relative clauses has been especially important because these structures vary in complexity and therefore make developmental patterns easier to observe. One influential line of work draws on markedness and the Noun Phrase Accessibility Hierarchy, which predicts that less marked relative clauses are generally easier to acquire than more marked ones. In this view, learners tend to control simpler syntactic relations before more complex ones, although the exact difficulty order may vary across languages and tasks (Eckman, 1991; Ozeki & Shirai, 2007).

This means that syntactic development is not random. Learners often begin with less marked and more frequent constructions, and only later expand to structures that require greater processing resources or more complex form–meaning mapping. Studies of relative clause acquisition support this general pattern, but they also show that development is shaped by typology, animacy, and instructional conditions rather than by markedness alone. As a result, syntax development is best understood as the product of both structural difficulty and learner experience with the target language (Eckman, 1991; Ozeki & Shirai, 2007).

The Value of Grammar Instruction

The value of grammar instruction has been debated for decades, but research syntheses generally support the conclusion that form-focused instruction can facilitate second language development. Spada’s review showed that instructional attention to form can promote acquisition, while Norris and Ortega’s meta-analysis found that focused L2 instruction produces substantial target-oriented gains and that explicit instruction often yields stronger effects than implicit instruction. These findings do not mean that grammar teaching should replace communication; rather, they suggest that attention to grammar can support learners when it is integrated into a broader language-learning program (Spada, 1997; Norris & Ortega, 2000).

At the same time, grammar instruction is not equally effective in all forms. Ellis argues that the real issue is not whether grammar should be taught, but how, when, and for what purpose. Instruction is most useful when it helps learners notice grammatical features, connect form and meaning, and practice those features in ways that support later use. In this sense, the strongest contemporary position is not a choice between grammar and communication, but a view that grammar instruction has value when it is pedagogically well timed and meaningfully connected to use (Ellis, 2006; Norris & Ortega, 2000).

Advantages of Grammar Instruction

One major advantage of grammar instruction is that it can improve accuracy, especially in structures that learners are unlikely to master quickly through exposure alone. Meta-analytic evidence indicates that instruction contributes positively to grammatical development, and later work suggests that explicit instruction can be especially helpful for complex structures. Spada and Tomita (2010), for example, found that both explicit and implicit instruction can be effective, but explicit instruction often shows stronger benefits across grammatical targets. This suggests that grammar instruction can accelerate learning by making relevant features more noticeable and more available for practice (Spada & Tomita, 2010; Norris & Ortega, 2000).

Grammar instruction can also support metalinguistic awareness. When learners are encouraged to reflect on grammatical form, they may become better able to monitor their own output and understand differences between what they intend to say and what they actually produce. Ellis’s review of grammar pedagogy argues that explicit knowledge may not automatically become spontaneous performance, but it can still support learning by directing attention and helping learners notice patterns in input and output (Ellis, 2006).

Language Instruction and Learner Readiness

An important limitation on instruction is learner readiness. Pienemann’s Teachability Hypothesis proposes that learners can benefit from instruction only when the target structure is developmentally close to what their current interlanguage system can process. In other words, instruction cannot simply force learners to skip acquisitional stages. This idea has been influential because it links pedagogy to developmental constraints rather than assuming that any structure can be successfully taught at any time (Pienemann, 1984).

This has important implications for teaching. If instruction is directed at structures far beyond learners’ current developmental level, its effects may be limited or delayed. By contrast, instruction that is aligned with learners’ current readiness is more likely to be effective. A balanced conclusion, therefore, is that grammar instruction can be valuable, but its success depends partly on whether the learner is ready to integrate the targeted feature into the developing interlanguage system (Pienemann, 1984; Ellis, 2006).

Problem-Solving Activity

Situation

After several months of studying English, An can speak in short, simple sentences quite well, but he still struggles with complex grammar, especially relative clauses and longer sentence patterns. When he writes or speaks, he often simplifies his ideas to avoid mistakes. His teacher has given grammar explanations and correction, but An still feels unsure about when and how to use the structures correctly. Sometimes he memorizes useful phrases and uses them well, but when he creates new sentences by himself, errors appear again.

Task

Work in groups and help An solve this problem.

Your group should discuss and decide:

1. What is An’s main language problem?
2. Is his difficulty related more to syntax development, learner readiness, interlanguage, or lack of practice?
3. How can grammar instruction help him without making him afraid of speaking?
4. What kinds of activities can help him move from memorized formulas to more accurate original sentences?
5. How can the teacher give feedback effectively?
6. What should An do for the next four weeks to improve?

Group Outcome

Create a short action plan for An with:

• one grammar-focused activity
• one speaking activity
• one writing activity
• one feedback strategy
• one way to measure improvement

Then present your solution to the class and explain why it is effective.

References

Boers, F., Eyckmans, J., Kappel, J., Stengers, H., & Demecheleer, M. (2006). Formulaic sequences and perceived oral proficiency: Putting a lexical approach to the test. Language Teaching Research, 10(3), 245–261. https://doi.org/10.1191/1362168806lr195oa

Cenoz, J. (2013). Defining multilingualism. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 33, 3–18. https://doi.org/10.1017/S026719051300007X

Corder, S. P. (1975). Error analysis, interlanguage and second language acquisition. Language Teaching, 8(4), 201–218. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/language-teaching/article/error-analysis-interlanguage-and-second-language-acquisition/5C9DFA83D40DBD644A6567B71FA9AD98

Eckman, F. R. (1991). Hypotheses and methods in second language acquisition: Testing the noun phrase accessibility hierarchy on relative clauses. Studies in Second Language Acquisition.
URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/studies-in-second-language-acquisition/article/hypotheses-and-methods-in-second-language-acquisition-testing-the-noun-phrase-accessibility-hierarchy-on-relative-clauses/2E44256CFC51136B76D550938BA8C3EA

Ellis, R. (2006). Current issues in the teaching of grammar: An SLA perspective. TESOL Quarterly, 40(1), 83–107.
DOI/URL: https://doi.org/10.2307/40264512

Ellis, N. C. (2002). Frequency effects in language processing: A review with implications for theories of implicit and explicit language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24(2), 143–188. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263102002024

Ellis, N. C. (2006). Selective attention and transfer phenomena in L2 acquisition: Contingency, cue competition, salience, interference, overshadowing, blocking, and perceptual learning. Applied Linguistics, 27(2), 164–194. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/aml015

Ellis, N. C., Simpson-Vlach, R., & Maynard, C. (2008). Formulaic language in native and second-language speakers: Psycholinguistics, corpus linguistics, and TESOL. TESOL Quarterly, 42(3), 375–396. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1545-7249.2008.tb00137.x

Eckman, F. R. (1991). The structural conformity hypothesis and the acquisition of consonant clusters in the interlanguage of ESL learners. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 13(1), 23–41. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100009700

Gass, S. M., & Selinker, L. (2008). Second language acquisition: An introductory course (3rd ed.). Routledge. https://books.google.com/books/about/Second_Language_Acquisition.html?id=nG-RAgAAQBAJ

Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50(3), 417–528.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/0023-8333.00136

Ozeki, H., & Shirai, Y. (2007). Does the noun phrase accessibility hierarchy predict the difficulty order in the acquisition of Japanese relative clauses? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 29(2), 169–196.
URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/studies-in-second-language-acquisition/article/does-the-noun-phrase-accessibility-hierarchy-predict-the-difficulty-order-in-the-acquisition-of-japanese-relative-clauses/A70767D88E04FB1755F6A7B943215478

Pienemann, M. (1984). Psychological constraints on the teachability of languages. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 6(2), 186–214.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100005015

Robinson, P., & Ellis, N. C. (Eds.). (2008). Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition. Routledge. https://books.google.com/books/about/Handbook_of_Cognitive_Linguistics_and_Se.html?id=ZWshAQAAMAAJ

Schmidt, R. W. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 129–158. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/11.2.129

Selinker, L. (1972). Interlanguage. IRAL: International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 10(1–4), 209–231. https://doi.org/10.1515/iral.1972.10.1-4.209

Spada, N. (1997). Form-focussed instruction and second language acquisition: A review of classroom and laboratory research. Language Teaching, 30(2), 73–87.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444800012799

Spada, N., & Tomita, Y. (2010). Interactions between type of instruction and type of language feature: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60(2), 263–308.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2010.00562.x

Verspoor, M., Lowie, W., & Van Dijk, M. (2008). Variability in second language development from a dynamic systems perspective. The Modern Language Journal, 92(2), 214–231. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2008.00715.x

White, L. (2003). Second language acquisition and universal grammar. Cambridge University Press. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/second-language-acquisition-and-universal-grammar/1A8791E72630CBACE678CA4A2314C968

Wray, A. (2002). Formulaic language and the lexicon. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511519772

Case Study An is an English learner who can communicate simple ideas clearly, but he often makes mistakes when he tries to use longer or more complex sentences. In class, he usually says basic sentences such as “I like this book,” but he struggles when he wants to explain ideas like “The student who borrowed…