World Englishes, 2015 0883-2919

doi: 10.1111/weng.12113

Pedagogy and world Englishes: The legacy of Yamuna Kachru

MARGIE BERNS∗

ABSTRACT: From the beginning of world Englishes (WE) as a field of study, Yamuna Kachru was a
strong advocate for users of English in all circles. She consistently argued for language teaching and for
language acquisition research that would acknowledge the diverse bilingual and multilingual contexts in
which English is learned and used. This paper considers just four of her areas of interest as they pertain
to language pedagogy and world Englishes: the interlanguage hypothesis and fossilization, discourse
studies, contrastive rhetoric, and the sociolinguistic realities of learners and teachers. The conclusion offers
touchstones from her work to inspire future research.

INTRODUCTION
The teaching and learning of the world’s Englishes (WE) is a primary concern in WE
studies and is one that figures prominently in the work of a number of WE scholars. A
leader in this area of research was Yamuna Kachru. She consistently and persuasively
spoke and wrote about how better understanding and knowledge of all varieties of English,
including their development, their use, their structure, their literatures, and their contexts
could inform a range of pedagogical issues. Even a cursory look at a list of her publications,
conference papers, lectures and presentations quickly makes clear that she often addressed
themes and topics of interest to language policy makers, materials writers, curriculum de-
signers, teacher educators, and teachers. Just a few examples taken from her vita illustrate
the breadth of her areas of inquiry: pedagogical grammars, pragmatics and language learn-
ing, theoretical linguistics and language pedagogy, second language acquisition theory,
non-Western perspectives on applied linguistics, cross cultural speech act research and
the classroom, contrastive rhetoric in English education, context and curriculum, language
education policy in South Asia, culture in language teaching, communicative language
teaching, contextually appropriate curriculum in East Asia, and textbooks and world En-
glishes. Her incisive explorations and examinations were characterized by a no-nonsense,
feet-on-the-ground approach to identifying issues in need of attention, outlining a strategy
for analysis, and framing arguments that led to fresh insights as well as had implications
for practice and theory.1
It would take at least one book-length treatment of this extensive and varied body of work
to do justice to all that Yamuna Kachru contributed to an appreciation of the intersection
of the world Englishes paradigm and of the field of English language pedagogy. In the
absence of such a resource, I offer here a look at a quartet of themes and topics that Yamuna
wrote and spoke about, namely, the interlanguage hypothesis and fossilization, discourse
studies, contrastive rhetoric, and the sociolinguistic reality of learners and teachers.
∗ Department of English, Purdue University, Heavilon Hall 324, 500 Oval Drive, West Lafayette, Indiana 47907, USA.
E-mail: berns@purdue.edu


C 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
 Pedagogy and world Englishes 23

THE INTERLANGUAGE HYPOTHESIS AND FOSSILIZATION

Selinker’s (1972) interlanguage (IL) hypothesis and the related notion of fossilization have
been an enduring influence in second language acquisition (SLA) studies. These terms
were used to name, respectively: (i) the linguistic system developed by a second language
learner who has not become fully proficient in the language under study; and (ii) the
‘hardening’ of the system at some point in the learner’s transition from the system of the
native language to the second language. This theory and its attendant concepts were often
the subject of investigation and target of critique throughout Yamuna’s research. They not
only captured her attention as someone interested in the development of second language
communicative abilities, they also struck a nerve as her choice of words and tone in her
discussions of them reveal.
The flash point for her criticism of Selinker (1972: 217) was his assertion that Indian
English exemplifies a dialect ‘where fossilized IL competences may be a normal situation.’
He cites the existence of ‘that complement’ or V that construction for all verbs that take
sentential complements to illustrate his claim. He explains that ‘even when the correct
form has been learned by the Indian speaker of English, this type of knowledge is the
first he (sic) seems to lose when his (sic) attention is diverted to new intellectual subject
matter or when he (sic) has not spoken the TL [target language] for even a short time’
(1972: 216). It is no surprise that a user of Indian English so familiar with and conversant
in the sociolinguistic realities of this variety would take issue with Selinker or could avoid
reacting quite viscerally to his labeling of her English a ‘dialect.’
Yamuna built an argument against the validity of these assertions in a series of pub-
lications which examined both the assumptions underlying the interlanguage hypothesis
and the sources of data used to support it. The main themes of her critiques are clearly
represented in two book reviews: one of a volume edited by Gass and Selinker (1983) and
the other a monograph by Selinker (1992). Both are characterized by her clarity of logic.
Her response (1986b) to Gass and Selinker’s volume includes a recurring theme in
Yamuna’s scholarship which relate to teaching and learning of language – limitations in
the data that guide IL research. Evidence of such shortcomings was seen in Gass and
Selinker’s proceedings from a conference which had as its goal, according to the editors,
the coverage of ‘a wide spectrum of theoretical issues in language transfer [ . . . ] as well as
data from a representative sample of 1) language learning situations [ . . . ] and languages
involved as both L1s and L2s’ (1986b: 95; her emphasis). Yamuna points out that this goal
was obviously unmet as only one non-Westerner – from Israel – was a participant in the
conference. Traditional multilingual societies (e.g. of Africa, Latin America, South Asia,
or Southeast Asia) were not represented and thus it could not be claimed that the desired
‘representative sample of language learning situations’ (1986b: 97) was reflected in this
collection of conference papers.
Consideration of the role of communicative needs is another aspect of problems with
the interlanguage hypothesis also addressed in the review of Gass and Selinker. Yamuna
noted the lack of representation of their influence, making their value clear in saying:
‘The role of the communicative needs of the L2 user would have become apparent had
some studies dealing with traditional multilingual societies [ . . . ] been included in the
volume’ (1986b: 97). If such needs had been taken into consideration in the accounting
for features of L2 performance, researchers such as Olshtain and Scarcella (contributors to
this volume) might have entertained the possibility in their papers that ‘the L2 users are not


C 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
24 Margie Berns

transferring the sociocultural rules of discourse accent into their IL. It may be the case that
the users of L2 are deliberately and consciously adopting certain strategies to maintain their
sociocultural identities’ (1986b: 97). As Yamuna indicates, studies of Englishes around
the world demonstrate that the communicative function does play a significant role in L2
performance. Finding it lacking in interlanguage and fossilization research, she argues
the use of English in different social and cultural contexts ‘needs to be integrated in the
theoretical discussion attempting to characterize the linguistic performance of L2 users –
whether such users are learners or proficient users of a second language’ (1986b: 97).
Another object of her impatience with Selinker’s hypothesis is the notion of stabilization
as a feature of Inner Circle Englishes (most prominently British and America) alone.
In reviewing his 1992 book Rediscovering interlanguage, she challenges the author’s
insistence that stabilization is not a feature of Indian English when she observes: ‘The
question of why a stable system should be characterized as in IL is not answered. It is also
not clear what the difference is between “stable” and “fossilized”: that which is fossilized
is surely unchanging, therefore stable!’ (1993c: 266). She then takes him to task for having
made no attempt to utilize the numerous studies that are available that investigate stable
bilingual and multilingual contexts: without a serious effort to utilize the wealth of data
provided by the varieties of English around the world – not just that produced by foreign
learners of English or immigrants who have not yet become fluent speakers – we cannot
understand what really is involved in acquiring a second language (see also Kachru 1988,
1994a).
Yamuna Kachru’s conviction of the importance of the social and cultural contexts in
which English is learned and used appears repeatedly not only in her critiques of Selinker
and like-minded researchers; her contributions to and assessments of discourse studies
likewise stress the significance of the sociolinguistic profile of users and uses of English
(as well as any other language under scrutiny by Selinker and others).

DISCOURSE STUDIES
In one study of the relationship of discourse analysis, non-native Englishes, and sec-
ond language acquisition to one another, Yamuna points out that ‘the concerns of bi-
/multilingualism are extremely relevant for research on second language acquisition from
the point of view of these countries [of Africa, Latin America, South Asia, or Southeast
Asia]’ (1986b: 9) and goes on to argue that ‘examples from various localized forms of
English provide further support for the claim that learners follow the discourse conventions
of the native languages which results in their using specific grammatical devises of English
in a non-native fashion’ (1986b: 13). She follows this observation with four justifiably
pointed questions:
1. [if] the features identified as unique to non-native varieties of English are motivated by
discourse considerations . . . how can they be considered instances of fossilization?
2. How can we distinguish cases that exemplify discourse strategies from cases that provide
evidence for fossilization?
3. What theoretical justification, if any, is there for characterizing features of non-native
varieties as fossilization and of the varieties themselves as interlanguages?
4. Which characteristics of the non-native varieties encountered in creative writing, or
mature writing, (i.e. by journalists, critics, authors, etc.) are to be treated as illustrations

C 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
 Pedagogy and world Englishes 25

of bilingual’s creativity as opposed to fossilization, overgeneralization, or ignorance of

rule restrictions (1986b: 13–14)?

Each of these questions addresses IL researchers’ attempts to classify differences found

in their data as either evidence of overgeneralization of target language features or of
transfer from the native language. Yamuna clearly comes down on the side of bilingual
creativity, a perspective that identifies discourse conventions as the source of specific
grammatical devices that may be considered evidence of interlanguage or fossilization by
those unfamiliar with these conventions. (1986b: 12–13)
A further look at discourse strategies refuted researchers’ claims that ‘straight linear
progression of thought’ is an exclusive trait of native English expository writing (see also
Kachru 1985b). By drawing upon illustrations from non-native English texts, Yamuna
demonstrated that ‘directness’ is shared by expository prose in other languages and in
non-native varieties of English as well (1986b: 4). The conclusion she drew from an
examination of these texts was aimed unambiguously at interlanguage proponents: the
strategies employed by learners who are ‘after all non-native users of English are not
evidence of fossilization, as claimed in Scarcella (1983) [ . . . ] they represent the learners’
attempts at expressing meanings that are crucial for their cultural identities.’ (1986b: 13)
Further evidence of weaknesses in the interlanguage hypothesis and its claim for rel-
evance to language pedagogy came from her studies of speech act theory (1994a) and
pragmatics more generally (see, e.g., 1979c, 1981b, 1994b, and Kachru and Bouton 1990–
1994). These two subfields of linguistics were taken under consideration in her response
to the assumption of their proponents that speech act theory provided ‘access to a research
area and a set of methodologies which help in teaching and learning the use of language
in context’ (1986b: 39). To her knowledge, up to that point, no attempt had been made ‘to
examine this assumption explicitly’ (1986b: 39). Her goal was to determine the applica-
bility of the findings of crosscultural speech act and pragmatics research to the teaching
of a second or foreign language (see also Kachru 1994a, 1997b).
A ‘crucial area of difficulty’ in speech act research, when looked at from the classroom
perspective, was its failure to take into account the relationship between speech acts, the
Gricean cooperative principle and Brown and Levinson’s (1994: 39) politeness principles.
The rub here was the relevance of the rules of conventions that ensure appropriateness
and success in verbal communication (1986b: 2), in other words, the sociolinguistic notion
of communicative competence à la Hymes (1972). The obvious point here was the role
of sociocultural knowledge in the interpretation of discourse (or meaning) as well as
in its construction. Any judgment of the correctness of a study participant’s linguistic
response to a prompted situation requiring a particular speech act would need to take into
account the social and cultural context. What may be acceptable for a native speaker of
English (itself problematic as the model of correctness in speech act studies) may not be
at all appropriate for the user of an Outer Circle English and vice versa. In fact, the very
speech act a researcher is seeking a response to may not even exist in the repertoire of the
participant. Such is the case for a user of Hindi in a speech community which has no speech
act labels equivalent to apologizing, complimenting, requesting, and thanking in Hindi.
How to assess the Hindi users’ responses in English if the researcher blithely assumes an
equivalence of speech acts across cultures? What is at stake then in assessing English use
is the matter of relating the Englishes used to the culture of the users and to recognition
of the particular communicative competence they develop in the context of that culture.

C 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
26 Margie Berns

Or more concisely, in Yamuna’s words: ‘The nature of these Englishes has a great deal
to offer to our understanding of the nature of acquisition of communicative competence
in a second language’ (1985c: 3). She also took issue with researchers’ overreliance on
responses offered by immigrant learners of English or learners of EFL who have not yet
become fluent speakers. Doing so, she argued, compromises the validity of the data: a
serious effort then should be made to utilize the wealth of information provided by the
varieties of English around the world to understand what really is involved in acquiring a
second language, which often entails preservation of the sociocultural identity of the first
language speech community (1985c: 12).
Another problem Yamuna noted in research on second or foreign language pragmatics
was its exclusive attention to the second language speaker’s utterances to the neglect of
speaker intentions. This neglect suggests that all that counts is the perspective of the
hearer, who is presumed to be a native speaker of the language under focus. The speakers
are neither queried about their communicative intentions nor about the features of the
context of situation that informed their linguistic choices. Thus, if their responses to
the researcher’s prompts do not match the researcher’s expectations, these responses are
considered evidence of ‘pragmatic failure.’ However, if speakers had been asked about
their choices, perhaps the instances of ‘failure’ noted by the researcher – confidently
following his or her Inner Circle variety norms for pragmatic success – would be far fewer
or even non-existent. The meaningfulness of the data and conclusions from such studies
is called into question if there is ‘no theoretical sanction from the perspective of speaker
intentions’ (2005a: 162). A conclusion to be drawn from Yamuna’s critique is that, in the
absence of a sound theoretical basis for the teaching of pragmatics via rules of use that
apply in the production of speech acts, any description of communicative competence in
English and prescriptions for appropriate use are compromised. The question then that
researchers have yet to grapple with is how to judge the social correctness of a response
without knowledge of why particular phonetic, syntactic, lexical, or semantic choices are
made to realize a speech act and what the speaker intended by realizing these particular
choices.

CONTRASTIVE RHETORIC
An inescapable link to any discussion of discourse is contrastive rhetoric, which Yamuna
also scrutinized from a world Englishes perspective and with an eye to pedagogical impli-
cations. In a paper (1997c) on cultural meaning and contrastive rhetoric, she ‘questions the
assumptions of contrastive rhetoric in the context of English education around the world
[ . . . ] that proposes a methodology of contrastive rhetorical research [ . . . ] which takes into
account the writing in the Inner Circle, language socialization, traditions of literacy, and
writing in the multilingual and multicultural context of the Outer Circle.’ The alternative
methodology for contrastive rhetoric she proposes and its educational implications are
intended ‘for enriching the writing experience of all users of English, whether they come
from the Inner, Outer, or Expanding Circle of English’ (1997c: 337).
A basic assumption she challenged is the concept of a monolithic norm in academic
writing. This she labeled ‘a myth,’ one unsupported by research on language socializa-
tion and literacy (1997c: 338). For her, this mythological status had much to do with
the contrastive rhetoric researchers’ reliance on ‘methodologies based essentially on a
Western rhetorical tradition’ (1997c: 338). The conclusions drawn from this research for

C 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
 Pedagogy and world Englishes 27

educational implications ‘suggest that it is desirable to teach non-native users of English

the preferred rhetorical modes of English’ (1997c: 343). This is problematic, however,
given the sociocultural influences on rhetorical preferences (and the development of the
repertoire of modes available) when writing in English. The question of whose English
and whose norm is salient here, as she indicated in recognizing the value of raising the
consciousness of all writers regarding variation in preferred rhetorical patterns as ‘all in-
ternational users of English need to be aware of different rhetorical styles’ (1997c: 344).
Value is added to this insight with the extension of the need of such awareness to editors,
publishers and other professionals who deal with the different rhetorical conventions of
the users of English (a large number of whom are native speakers – and believers in the
native speaker myth – in control of information technology). This move was important for
her to make if the necessity of broadening the view of what is good writing was to lead
to inclusion of original work that would otherwise be excluded from publication and dis-
semination (1997c: 343–344). It is interesting to note that in the intervening 15 years, this
argument continues to be made by world Englishes scholars and others (see, for example,
papers appearing in the Journal of Second Language Writing, as well as World Englishes).
As a result of her analysis of contrastive rhetoric, she found, just as she had with speech
act theory, the contrastive rhetoric framework ‘as presently conceived and practiced in
English education around the world, is not compatible with the sociocultural realities of
the spread of English’ (1997c: 345). In the same vein, just as she recognized the value
of consciousness raising for all involved in writing and evaluating texts in English, she
supported research which aims to realize a typology and a set of universals of rhetorical
patterns as important and necessary. However, the task of contrasting rhetorical patterns
with the aim of changing the behavior of users of English who are not native speakers
would not be acceptable because doing so represented ‘a form of behaviorism [ . . . ] no
longer acceptable in linguistic research or language education’ (1997c: 345).
In response to the weaknesses in the contrastive rhetoric framework and the limitations
of its findings for the teaching of academic writing, she makes some recommendations on
behalf of writers in English outside the Inner Circle: professionals in English education
could assume leadership in adopting a more socially realistic approach to academic writing
and thus signal respect for the institutionalized varieties of English; in eliminating rigidity
in the prescription of the pattern of writing identified with American or British norms
(the ‘linear’ model) and thus validate the rhetorical styles of the multiple uses of English
around the world (1997c: 345) (such as the Indian tradition which is characterized by a spiral
development (1997c); and in encouraging individual creativity in academic disciplines as
well as in creative writing to avoid academic writing in general from becoming ‘a sterile,
formula-oriented activity’ (1997c: 344).

SOCIOLINGUISTIC REALITY OF LEARNERS AND TEACHERS

In a contribution on world Englishes and language education for the Handbook of research
in second language learning and teaching, Yamuna succinctly and emphatically captured
the essence of WE researchers’ pedagogical concerns as ‘the sociolinguistic realities that
the learners and teachers of English confront in the various global contexts of the ELT
trade’ (2005a: 161). Among these realities is the aim of users of standard Indian, Nigerian,
or Singaporean English to function effectively and appropriately in their own variety, that
is, they are ‘NOT attempting to produce a ‘foreign’ norm’ (emphasis original) (2005a:

C 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
28 Margie Berns

159). She also found it significant to underscore the nature of the input learners in the
Outer Circle and the Expanding Circle received. Unlike learners who are resident in an
Inner Circle context, most learners elsewhere get input from local sources whether it be
from the linguistic environment outside of class or from the local teachers in the classroom.
In Yamuna’s words, ‘No need is felt, certainly in many of the Outer Circle countries, for
making either American or British English input available to a large majority of learners’
(2005a: 159). This reality is closely linked with yet another sociolinguistic fact, that of
sociocultural identity. It is ‘one major consideration that is left out of the discussion on
WEs in the SLA literature’ (2005a: 160), Yamuna points out and continues that ‘There
is enough evidence in sociolinguistic literature to show that users of institutionalized va-
rieties are secure in their identities and do not wish to acquire the identity of either an
American or British speaker of English’ (2005a: 160). For reasons such as these, she states
unequivocally: ‘defining input in terms of external norms and making judgments about
acquisitional deficiency is irrelevant and unjustifiable’ (2005a: 159) and as a consequence
it would be desirable to break away from a paradigm of research that focuses largely on
investigating SLA in the target language environment. It is here that her look at cognitive
and cultural styles is relevant as well. This is seen in a contribution to the ‘Research Issues’
section of TESOL Quarterly (1994d), in which she asserts that research in language social-
ization and its attendant concerns with socio-cultural factors is an essential complement to
cognitive-psychological factors for an adequate conceptualization of language acquisition
(1994d: 797). These sociolinguistic facts call for a new theoretical framework for research
that would start with the assumption that people learn languages in order to fulfill certain
communicative needs which may not coincide with the needs of the native speakers of the
target language (1986b: 18; see also Kachru 2004, 2006c, 2008f).
Due to Yamuna’s leadership as guest editor of an issue of World Englishes entitled
Pedagogical grammars of English: Approaches and resources (1987e), a foundational
contribution to pedagogy and to WE studies is available. In the preface she describes the
topic of pedagogical grammars as ‘complex,’ made no less intricate by the diverse users
of English in the Inner, Outer and Expanding Circles, and as ‘the most important and
most controversial’ issue in English pedagogy (1987e: 191). In researching the topic she
found a broader perspective lacking and, as a remedy, she gathered together colleagues
who represented an international perspective. The selected scholars not only were familiar
with classroom practices, but also had authored pedagogical grammars, knew various
linguistic theories, and had conducted syntactic and pragmatic analyses of non-Inner Circle
Englishes. Such a gathering of expertise formed a convincing argument for the value of
an international, world Englishes sensitive approach to the teaching of and the writing of
such grammars (see Kachru 2006c for a more comprehensive discussion of pedagogical
grammars).
Her own paper written for this issue (1987e), a report of graduate student reaction to then
recently published A comprehensive grammar of English (Quirk et al. 1985) merits special
comment for what it reveals about Yamuna as a teacher and scholar. The paper records
the responses of 29 students who were enrolled at the time in her Pedagogical Grammar
course at the University of Illinois-Urbana. She asked these pre- and in-service teachers
to assess the grammar in five areas: ease of use as a reference, clarity of the explanations,
whether they would use this reference, comprehensiveness, and how it compared with
other reference grammars. The results were presented straightforwardly, without analysis.
For her it was enough that the responses of these students, whose opinions she valued and

C 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
 Pedagogy and world Englishes 29

took seriously, would be presented to the readers of World Englishes, who hopefully would
find them interesting and useful. The choice to forego any interpretation or commentary
is typical of her modesty and generosity as both teacher and scholar: she would share, if
not entirely give over, the spotlight and the credit to others.

CONCLUSION
One fitting conclusion to this reflection on Yamuna Kachru’s legacy, thoughts and reactions,
one that can only scratch the surface of the import of her contribution to pedagogy and
world Englishes, is to acknowledge that her influence has no end. Anyone concerned with
issues in language policy, curriculum issues, classroom practice, and theoretical concerns
of relevance to education in English, whether at the national, regional, or international
level, have the observations and insights of this exceptional educator and scholar as guides
and inspiration when striving to ensure the ethical treatment of English language learners
and teachers alike.
Another step that seems fitting in closing this tribute is to give Yamuna the last word.
Two extended quotes were taken from her state-of-the-art contribution on the teaching
and learning of world Englishes, which appeared in the Handbook of research in second
language learning and teaching (2011b). In the first she acknowledges that while there
is plenty of work to do, it is too important to be left undone. In the second she concisely
and unambiguously describes what the learning and teaching of world Englishes means.
Together they seem well-suited as touchstones for future endeavors.

There is however a great deal of work to be done before all those involved in ELT worldwide feel
comfortable with the paradigm shift that teaching and learning WE’s signals. Applied linguistics and
ELT professionals have yet to take a principled stand and prepare themselves to incorporate the WE
perspective into their academic practices. These then will have an effect on the educational policymakers
and educational authorities who will then be able to adopt an appropriate stance toward the teaching and
learning of English (2011b: 164).

Learning and teaching of world Englishes does not mean learning and teaching of each regional variety
to everyone in the Inner Circle classrooms or everyone learning English in Brazil, China, Japan, Saudi
Arabia, or Southern Africa. It means making learners aware of the rich variation that exists in English
around the world at an appropriate point in their language education in all three Circles and of giving
them the tools to educate themselves further about using their English for effective communication
across varieties. . . . The applied linguists and ELT professions have a responsibility to equip learners
of English to meet the challenges of globalization (2011b: 167).

NOTE
1. The work discussed herein which directly addresses pedagogy and world Englishes was published after major contribu-
tions to the teaching of Hindi. Yamuna Kachru’s constant dedication to classroom concerns and her accomplishments
as a linguist are evident, for example, in a 1973 paper on theoretical linguistics and language pedagogy (Kachru
1973d) and a 1981 piece on computer based instruction in Hindi (Kachru et al. 1981a). Further larger scale peda-
gogical applications are two textbooks, one for learners of elementary Hindi (Kachru et al.1980c) and the other for
intermediate level learners (Kachru & Pandharipande 1983).


C 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
30 Margie Berns

REFERENCES
[All references to Yamuna Kachru’s work appear in the bibliography at the end of this special issue.]
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1978). Universals in language usage: Politeness phenomena. In E. N. Goody (ed.), Questions
and politeness: Strategies in social interaction, pp. 56–311. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gass, Susan & Larry Selinker (eds.). 1983. Language transfer in language learning. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Hymes, Dell. 1972. On communicative competence. In John B. Pride & Janet Holmes (eds.), Sociolinguistics: Selected
readings, 269–293. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech & Jan Svartvik. 1985. A comprehensive grammar of English.
London: Longman.
Selinker, Larry. 1972. Interlanguage. International Review of Applied Linguistics 10(3). 209–231.
Selinker, Larry. 1992. Rediscovering interlanguage. London: Longman.
(Received 1 November 2014)


C 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd